Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have a unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy that infrastructure for SCA Native.
-------------------- Brady Johnson Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adriano Crestani Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap] Thanks ant, As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code, then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it is. SCA unit tests - I never tested SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working fine and does not use any unit test tool Regards, Adriano Crestani On 10/24/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used. > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a > distro, we can't use anything LGPL. > > ...ant > > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > Brady > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > roadmap] > > > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't > > find anything. I'm no legal expert. > > > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before > > using it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with > > > > the > > > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern. > > > > > > > > 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+Nat > > > > >>ive+ > > > > >>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+N > > > > >>>>ativ > > > > >>>>e+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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pete > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
