Hi Annette, Here are some guidelines we submit to developers who want to contribute to the Castor code base:
1- Open a bugzilla item and mark your request as "enhancement" and make sure you assigned the bug to yourself. 2- Try to be more confident with the code base by learning it, testing it. You can ask questions for any dark areas. Make sure you understand the overall consistency. 3- Once you gain sufficient confidence, you can design and code your contribution. During the coding phase I advise you to follow the Exolab Java Conventions (it can be found on the web site). 4- Once you're done, make a diff against the current code base and attached it in the bugzilla (diff -u is the preferred patch) 5- Inform us so that we can enter the review process. The review process can take time but it will be followed for sure. We'll sit down and make a full review of the code and provide you feedback. 6- Submit a CTF Test case (if possible) for your new feature/patch 7- That's it; the patch if accepted should be in the next release :) Feel free to ask for more information, Arnaud > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:11 PM > To: Arnaud Blandin; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Question concerning Unsigned data type > > Hello Arnaud, > > my experience is completely different. I have been working with several XML > Schema files where unsigned types of all kinds were used exhaustively, and > often in > places where there was no real reason to restrict the values to non-negative; > I > ascribe this to the habits of some C programmers in the teams specifying the > schema. > > So I'd offer as a first step to try with the unsignedInt,short,byte mapping > and leave > unsignedLong for further discussion. Which I open below ... > Is there anyone whom I can contact to check if my modifications are ok? You? I > am a > newbie to open source programming, but I know the reactions of teammates when > you break the code ... > > I understand your argumentation concerning unsignedLong - you do not want to > go > back behind the XML Schema spec. But I would dare mapping unsignedLong onto > long despite of the non-literal mapping of the Schema spec for the following > reasons: > - the use of a mapping still cannot solve the problem that you just cannot > store > integer values > Long.MAX properly in Java > - I think that long values in the range of Long.MAX+1 up to the XML Schema > maximum will occur even less frequently than the usage of unsignedLong at all > - off-the-shelf usability of Castor is an important argument to augment the > audience. > This comes from my experience again - I find it in most cases extremely > difficult to > convince people to use tools they have not used before, and argumentation is > remarkably easier if a tool produces good results without the need for > reconfiguration. > > Regards, Annette > > -- > Dr. Annette S�ndermann > Zenturion GmbH > Postfach 1248, 85730 Ismaning > Tel.: 089/638 76 706 Fax: 089/638 76 707 > Internet: http://www.zenturion.de ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
