I can help with validating the samples and demos for 1.2.1.
On 5/27/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dave Sowerby wrote: > > > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> With regards to the 1.2.1 release you are correct that we have a > >> patched version of tuscany-sca-all which would work, but this however > >> leaves us in an awkward configuration position. > >> > >> We're currently preparing a software release based around Tuscany > >> which is completely open to customers of our use of Tuscany, such that > >> we document fully how to construct services independent of our > >> software. As such, we do not ship any Tuscany artifacts and instead > >> encourage our customers to utilise the published maven repository. > >> Whilst requiring a patch version of one of the jars is possible; I > >> don't feel that this is a good representation of Tuscany - either > >> documenting a variant version or expecting a non-standard version of > >> 1.2-incubating. These potential solutions are more likely to cause > >> issues for customers that would undermine the image of Tuscany that we > >> try to project. > >> > >> Is anyone adamantly opposed to this release? Do you feel Tuscany > >> 1.2.1 is still an option? I'd hope that given the potential to damage > >> our customer's perception of Tuscany would be enough to justify this > >> minor release. > >> > >> Thanks for the clarifaction and explanation. It seems to me that > > because we distribute Tuscany via Maven repos, which can't be patched, > > this kind of situation will arise whenever a serious bug is found. > > We can use patches to isolate a problem and confirm the fix, but we > > generally won't be able to use them as an alternative to a release. > > > > In a situation like this, unless a new release is imminent, the best > > solution seems to be to produce a quick "bug fix" release without > > incurring the overhead of a full release and testing cycle. Ant has > > suggested that we could do this by applying a small set of carefully > > controlled changes to the previous 1.2 release tag. I think we need > > to be very strict about what changes go in, to avoid another experience > > like 1.0.1. Specifically, I would suggest only including the fix > > for TUSCANY-2304. > > > > What do others think of this? > > > > Simon > > > > > > Cheers, > >> > >> Dave. > >> > >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Nishant Joshi wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> I have raised TUSCANY-2304 which was actually blocking me to go > further > >>>> with > >>>> SCA client. So It was given high priority to resolved and fortunately > >>>> Ant > >>>> has resolved it very fast, i appreciate his effortt, thanks alot Ant > for > >>>> this :). > >>>> Another one was TUSCANY-2251 that was handled by Simon Nash and he has > >>>> also > >>>> done good progress on it (found from this list ). This problem came in > >>>> eclipse generated web service client (please refer it for more detail) > >>>> so > >>>> this is also in high priority to get in next release. So i request to > >>>> add > >>>> TUSCANY-2304 in 1.2.1 and if possible TUSCANY-2251 also. > >>>> > >>>> One more thing, its very critical for us to get the next release 1.2.1 > >>>> ASAP > >>>> (with 2304 and if possbile 2251 also :) ). > >>>> > >>>> So I hope you can understand the effect of the TUSCANY-2304 for any > >>>> tuscany > >>>> SCA client user . > >>>> > >>> Hi Nishant, > >>> The work to fix TUSCANY-2251 has turned out bigger than expected. > >>> It's one of those cases where the first 80%-90% can be done quite > >>> quickly but supporting the final 10%-20% of cases turns up many > >>> issues, some of which require changes in other parts of the code. > >>> > >>> I'm preparing a (large) checkin to update the new generator code > >>> so that it handles most of the cases (perhaps 95%). This should be > >>> enough to get the full build to run with the new code. However, I > >>> wouldn't consider the new code to be ready to release at that point. > >>> It will need quite a bit of further testing and a few more updates > >>> to take care of the remaining 5% of cases. Some of these cases will > >>> require discussion on the list to agree how they should be handled. > >>> Also, the new code will need testing by people other than myself > >>> with their scenarios to make sure that it does not break cases that > >>> worked with the previous Java2WSDL generator. > >>> > >>> For all these reasons, I think it will take about another 3 weeks > >>> to get the new generator code to the state that I would be happy > >>> to see it enabled in a release. > >>> > >>> Regarding TUSCANY-2304, from other emails I see that Ant has sent > >>> you a patched version of tuscany-sca-all-1.2-incubating.jar that > >>> contains the fix for your problem. Can you explain why you need a > >>> new release in addition to this patch? > >>> > >>> Simon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > +1 to Simon's comment. Any kind of "fix creep" over what is really required > is going to make this more than a quick bug fix release. > > Simon >
