Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
Amita, On 2/25/08, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below are the things pending before I can form RC2, please see if anybody have any inputs. All others comments are acted on. Pending: 1) The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really required or could it be excluded? .felix folder should be excluded. It is created while running OSGi tests, and it should not be in the source repository. 2) The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? maven-osgi-plugin has been replaced by maven-bundle-plugin, which has a non-snapshot version - I think the latest version is 1.2.1. Moving to maven-bundle-plugin will require changes to the plugin configuration entries in pom.xml. I can provide the changes if you want to do this migration for this release. 3) Mention of backport util source location in bin/Notice file - confirmation Regards, Amita On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking a few things below where I am not clear - NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info on origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to see if that helped, but no. Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc -?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the samples use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in index.html where we are listing all the other dependencies, right? I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but having got it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having these new libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed to the javadoc for this. Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project of bin distribution. Trying... good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if you haven't already solved it Regards, Amita On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubatinglevel and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
Luciano, I am hoping SDO is going to move away from using the felix plugin in favour of the maven bundle plugin, so we won't then have a version matching issue. Kelvin. On 25/02/2008, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the felix version. Should we make sure both SCA and SDO are using the same versions ? On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below are the things pending before I can form RC2, please see if anybody have any inputs. All others comments are acted on. Pending: 1) The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really required or could it be excluded? 2) The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? 3) Mention of backport util source location in bin/Notice file - confirmation Regards, Amita On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking a few things below where I am not clear - NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info on origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to see if that helped, but no. Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc -?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the samples use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in index.html where we are listing all the other dependencies, right? I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but having got it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having these new libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed to the javadoc for this. Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project of bin distribution. Trying... good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if you haven't already solved it Regards, Amita On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubatinglevel and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
Below are the things pending before I can form RC2, please see if anybody have any inputs. All others comments are acted on. Pending: 1) The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really required or could it be excluded? 2) The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? 3) Mention of backport util source location in bin/Notice file - confirmation Regards, Amita On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking a few things below where I am not clear - NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info on origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to see if that helped, but no. Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc -?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the samples use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in index.html where we are listing all the other dependencies, right? I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but having got it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having these new libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed to the javadoc for this. Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project of bin distribution. Trying... good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if you haven't already solved it Regards, Amita On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubatinglevel and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target directory in the samples directory of the binary distribution Release notes ... ISSUE -- following is not so Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first such release with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not included in the 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below for detail) there are a number of new features relating to XML serialization, and new support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes. and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
As for the felix version. Should we make sure both SCA and SDO are using the same versions ? On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below are the things pending before I can form RC2, please see if anybody have any inputs. All others comments are acted on. Pending: 1) The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really required or could it be excluded? 2) The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? 3) Mention of backport util source location in bin/Notice file - confirmation Regards, Amita On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking a few things below where I am not clear - NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info on origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to see if that helped, but no. Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc -?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the samples use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in index.html where we are listing all the other dependencies, right? I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but having got it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having these new libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed to the javadoc for this. Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project of bin distribution. Trying... good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if you haven't already solved it Regards, Amita On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubatinglevel and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target directory in the samples directory of the binary distribution Release notes ... ISSUE -- following is not so Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking a few things below where I am not clear - NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc -?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the samples use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in index.html where we are listing all the other dependencies, right? Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project of bin distribution. Trying... Regards, Amita On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubating level and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target directory in the samples directory of the binary distribution Release notes ... ISSUE -- following is not so Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first such release with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not included in the 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below for detail) there are a number of new features relating to XML serialization, and new support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes. and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0 release below that. I think we need to compose some words specific to the nature of this release. ISSUE -- The JIRA list looks OK but I think it contains CTS JIRAs juch as 829, we need to check it against https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310210status=5fixfor=12312995resolution=1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESCsorter/field=componentssorter/order=ASCsorter/field=updatedsorter/order=DESC Source ZIP File on Windows == md5 is fine pgp .asc file to be verified ISSUE - The BUILDING file needs updating with respect to building with Java 1.4.2 -- instead of asking the builder to manually remove files that contain java 5 features we can now tell them to do mvn -Pjava_1_4_maven or whatever the profile name is LICENSE file looks good ditto README ISSUE - the RELEASE_NOTES have the same issues as the binary file, but I think that's becasue they come from the same file in the distribution project Building with Java 5 successfully puts maven artifacts into my repo Building the distribution project results in archives that look the same as those you have posted (including the spurious target directory in the samples project of the binary distribution) ISSUE - the java5tools project contains an unneccessary license.txt file Maven artifacts LICENSE.txt files look OK The META-INF/README.txt
SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] I cut a branch for this release at [3] The rat report is at - [4], [5] Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed back on the install, build and samples. Please give an early feedback, so as to help in quickly revising the required changes and forming RC2. [1] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1 [2] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/mavenhttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven [3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-1.1-incubating/ [4] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txthttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt [5] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txthttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt Note: please do reply (not reply all), so as to let the discussion happen in user ML. Best Regards, Amita
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] I cut a branch for this release at [3] The rat report is at - [4], [5] Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed back on the install, build and samples. Please give an early feedback, so as to help in quickly revising the required changes and forming RC2. [1] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1 http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1 [2] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/mavenhttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven [3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-1.1-incubating/ [4] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txthttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt [5] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txthttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt Note: please do reply (not reply all), so as to let the discussion happen in user ML. Best Regards, Amita Looks pretty good to me for an RC1, here's some things I found: Several of the README.txt files refer to version 1.0 instead of 1.1 The copyright date in the NOTICE files needs updating from 2007 to 2008 The javadoc jars in staging maven repo don't have legal files. I think this is a problem with the maven javadoc plugin and you either need to manually add the legal files or else not publish the javadoc in the maven repo. The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really required or could it be excluded? The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? The staging maven repo has .md5 and .sha1 of the .asc files which isn't really necessary You should add your gpg key to the Tuscany KEYS file - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/KEYS (see the bottom of http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Create+signing+key) ...ant
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target directory in the samples directory of the binary distribution Release notes ... ISSUE -- following is not so Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first such release with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not included in the 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below for detail) there are a number of new features relating to XML serialization, and new support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes. and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0 release below that. I think we need to compose some words specific to the nature of this release. ISSUE -- The JIRA list looks OK but I think it contains CTS JIRAs juch as 829, we need to check it against https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310210status=5fixfor=12312995resolution=1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESCsorter/field=componentssorter/order=ASCsorter/field=updatedsorter/order=DESC Source ZIP File on Windows == md5 is fine pgp .asc file to be verified ISSUE - The BUILDING file needs updating with respect to building with Java 1.4.2 -- instead of asking the builder to manually remove files that contain java 5 features we can now tell them to do mvn -Pjava_1_4_maven or whatever the profile name is LICENSE file looks good ditto README ISSUE - the RELEASE_NOTES have the same issues as the binary file, but I think that's becasue they come from the same file in the distribution project Building with Java 5 successfully puts maven artifacts into my repo Building the distribution project results in archives that look the same as those you have posted (including the spurious target directory in the samples project of the binary distribution) ISSUE - the java5tools project contains an unneccessary license.txt file Maven artifacts LICENSE.txt files look OK The META-INF/README.txt file in the sdo-impl and api jars are for 1.0-incubating, date July 2007 -- I guess this is the same for all Testing a build against the staging repo: Altering the repository url for apache.incubator in the top level pom of the source distro to http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven and building the sample project in that distro, with no sdo artifacts in my local repo, successfully causes download of the SDO artifacts from your staging repo, and the sample project build is successful On 21/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] I cut a branch for this release at [3] The rat report is at - [4], [5] Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed back on the install, build and samples. Please give an early feedback, so as to help in quickly revising the required changes and forming RC2. [1] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1 http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1 [2] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven [3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-1.1-incubating/ [4]
Re: SDO Java 1.1-incubating release candidate 1
the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at 3.2.0rather than 3.2.1 Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubating level and has the woodstox version issue. Kelvin. On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments Binary zip file on Windows == MD5 is fine I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the KEYS file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't spent a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar versions are correct NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed README seems fine Samples javadoc -- Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: commonj/sdo/DataObject at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( SampleInfrastructure.java:58) at org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure .clinit(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect the updated jar versions C:\Release\sdo- 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples ISSUE - there is an extra target directory in the samples directory of the binary distribution Release notes ... ISSUE -- following is not so Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first such release with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not included in the 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below for detail) there are a number of new features relating to XML serialization, and new support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes. and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0 release below that. I think we need to compose some words specific to the nature of this release. ISSUE -- The JIRA list looks OK but I think it contains CTS JIRAs juch as 829, we need to check it against https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310210status=5fixfor=12312995resolution=1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESCsorter/field=componentssorter/order=ASCsorter/field=updatedsorter/order=DESC Source ZIP File on Windows == md5 is fine pgp .asc file to be verified ISSUE - The BUILDING file needs updating with respect to building with Java 1.4.2 -- instead of asking the builder to manually remove files that contain java 5 features we can now tell them to do mvn -Pjava_1_4_maven or whatever the profile name is LICENSE file looks good ditto README ISSUE - the RELEASE_NOTES have the same issues as the binary file, but I think that's becasue they come from the same file in the distribution project Building with Java 5 successfully puts maven artifacts into my repo Building the distribution project results in archives that look the same as those you have posted (including the spurious target directory in the samples project of the binary distribution) ISSUE - the java5tools project contains an unneccessary license.txt file Maven artifacts LICENSE.txt files look OK The META-INF/README.txt file in the sdo-impl and api jars are for 1.0-incubating, date July 2007 -- I guess this is the same for all Testing a build against the staging repo: Altering the repository url for apache.incubator in the top level pom of the source distro to http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/mavenhttp://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven and building the sample project in that distro, with no sdo artifacts in my local repo, successfully causes download of the SDO artifacts from your staging repo, and the sample project build is successful On 21/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] I cut a branch for this release at [3] The rat report is at - [4], [5] Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed back on the install,
