Hi Haleh, This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon?
Adriano Crestani On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test tool > outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work? > > On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code > > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a > > derivative work. > > > > So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot > > distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was > > looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (, > but > > I > > found this 2: > > > > http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/ > > http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/ > > > > Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for > > sure if they are compatible with ASF license. > > > > Regards, > > Adriano Crestani > > > > On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > > > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code > > > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a > > > derivative work. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people > what > > > > tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having > a > > > > list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to > > > distribute > > > > > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on > the > > > web site > > > > > I could be helpful :) > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany > > release? > > > > >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see > > some > > > > >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for > > people > > > > >>who build the source to download the tool separately. > > > > >> > > > > >> Simon > > > > >> > > > > >>Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>Hi, > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and > > don't > > > > >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to > > > modify > > > > >> > > > > >>the > > > > >> > > > > >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the > > > modifications > > > > >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for > another > > > text > > > > >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I > > > really > > > > >> > > > > >>dont > > > > >> > > > > >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open > source > > > C/C++ > > > > >>>unit test tools on [1]. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Regards, > > > > >>>Adriano Crestani > > > > >>> > > > > >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I > > updated > > > the > > > > >>>>wiki with a documentation feature. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R > > > > >>>>elease+Contents > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>-------------------- > > > > >>>>Brady Johnson > > > > >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > > > > >>>>Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM > > > > >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > > > >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > > roadmap] > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started > > and > > > > >>>>user > > > > >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between > > Native > > > and > > > > >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample > of > > a > > > > >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list > > to > > > > >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be: > > > > >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp). > > > > >>>>>2) build system move to ant > > > > >>>>>(enough there for a release) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data > > > model. > > > > >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal > > for > > > > >>>>>that. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>Cheers, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>>Hello all, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next > > Release > > > > >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne > > > > >>>>>>xt+R > > > > >>>>>>elease+Contents > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, > what's > > > the > > > > >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the > changes? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>-------------------- > > > > >>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > > >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > > > > >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM > > > > >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > > > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > > > >>>>>>roadmap] > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post: > > > > >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like > > making > > > > >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to > test > > > > >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained > > and > > > > >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a > unit > > > > >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this > > (use > > > > >>>>>>cppunit?) > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion. > > > > >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build > > > > >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles > > and > > > > >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :) > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from > > > source > > > > >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so > it > > > can > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on > > > automake > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source > > projects. > > > > >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it > > > ;-) ... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe > an > > > ant > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with > > that. > > > > >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build > > > would > > > > >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ?? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>-------------------- > > > > >>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > > >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > > > >>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > > > >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM > > > > >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > > > >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > roadmap] > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next > > SCA > > > > >>>>>>>Native release. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around > a > > > > >>>>>>>>bit and > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for > > > > >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I > > was > > > > >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the > 1.0C++ > > > > >>>>>>>C&I spec version > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>elaborate? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. > I'm > > > all > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>>for > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>simplifying the build though! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight > > > > >>>>>>>>changes to > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage) > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>ok > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>sounds good. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>-------------------- > > > > >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > > >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > > > >>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>-- > > > > >>>>>>>Pete > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Pete > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >
