[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Sorry - In my case silence = I usually only watch the top 7 topics i.e. the ones that show up on the phpsoa google page, and this one had risen up and fallen below that threshold before I got round to reading it. I think it would be an interesting social experiment to see if we can evolve some project guidelines on the wiki. Do please copy in the set of headings and seed some sections. I liked the first paragraph of http://producingoss.com/en/written-rules.html which emphasises the need for evolved consensus, but the wonderful thing about a wiki is that it allows debate in situ, so if you write something that I don't like - or vice versa - we can mark the section as still under discussion while we discuss it. Matthew --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Hi Caroline, Sorry for my silence (other project activities have taken over my life at the moment). I would like to see this. As someone who commits less that others and whose brain seems to flush information all to readily, having the documented processes to refer to would be very helpful. Regards, Graham. On 10 Jul, 14:23, cem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 4:58 pm, Caroline Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caroline, would you be prepared to commit what you think the various important things to get right are to a page up on the web site a osoa.org? If you don't have time to do this I could extract thoughts from the email archive and document but would be good to get a brain dump. What we're talking about here is not really release process but development process. I'm certainly not intending to stand up for big cumbersome processes. To my mind, prompt management of Tuscany defects according to their rules is a basic courtesy to the Tuscany developers who are kind enough to to help us, that's all. OTOH, this test-driven development thing was my personal response to the confused state that I alone had let the bug tracker get into, which took me a few days to disentangle. I would really like the team to stick with it even now that Matthew is working on SDO as well as SCA, because I do believe that a smaller amount of work earlier will save us more time later, and reduce the number of unwanted side-effects that we see. Documenting how the project is run is a big undertaking. I think it would be a Good Thing, and to be authoritative, one that all the projects leads would need to take part in. It just so happens that I have on my desk right now a copy of Karl Fogel(my hero)'s book Producing Open Source Software, and he points to the Hacker's Guide to Subversion (http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/www/hacking.html) as a good example of project guidelines (well he would say that, wouldn't he?). Would you like me to create a wiki page with the subheadings defined in that document? If everyone likes that idea, then I promise to contribute some stuff under some of the subheadings. (For more, see http://producingoss.com/en/written-rules.html-I love that man). I had a positive response from Simon on this, but between us we only represent half of the current committers :-( I think I would be wasting my time starting a project charter unless there is more buy-in - I would just be insert vulgar expression here/. Not sure how to interpret silence, but indifference will kill it as effectively as hostility. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
On 14 Jun, 11:22, Caroline Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Peters wrote: I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap messages now validate correctly with soapscope and Java Xerces, which I think must be what soapscope is using (since the error messages are identical). Matthew, I'm glad you and Pete got this sorted. Some more process stuff: remember to change the status of the Tuscany defect from Resolved to Closed, and make a note of the new Tuscany revision level (seems to be 546761) in the release notes. Also, although I may sound like a rusty worn-out gramophone, please check in regression tests for the php defects. It's not so much that the testcases haven't appeared yet as that you haven't acknowledged either of my requests that's troubling me ... Hi I think that creating the suggested tests is a good idea. I've seen several emails pass by about release process and have to confess that I don't remember the details. While I'm not a big fan of being too process oriented our build and release is sufficiently complicated that it would benefit from having this written down. Caroline, would you be prepared to commit what you think the various important things to get right are to a page up on the web site a osoa.org? If you don't have time to do this I could extract thoughts from the email archive and document but would be good to get a brain dump. A note on the release. I'd like to help test it. Can I get a preview of the release candidate before it gets posted to PECL? Regards Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Caroline, Thanks for the reminder, I have changed the Tuscany defect 1297 to closed. I have made a note of the Tuscany level in our DUNLIN page here - I'll remember to add it to the release notes. I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at the time, apologies. There must be another one I have missed since you say either of my requests. Please point me at the one I have missed. Simon, I will email you a copy of the tgz file once I have made it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Matthew Peters wrote: I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at the time, apologies. There must be another one I have missed since you say either of my requests. Please point me at the one I have missed. FWIW, it was in a reply sent 8 Jun to a private mail from you ... as my previous append was intended to be :-/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that creating the suggested tests is a good idea. I've seen several emails pass by about release process and have to confess that I don't remember the details. While I'm not a big fan of being too process oriented our build and release is sufficiently complicated that it would benefit from having this written down. Caroline, would you be prepared to commit what you think the various important things to get right are to a page up on the web site a osoa.org? If you don't have time to do this I could extract thoughts from the email archive and document but would be good to get a brain dump. It's not so much dumping it as keeping it running that I find difficult :-) What we're talking about here is not really release process but development process. I'm certainly not intending to stand up for big cumbersome processes. To my mind, prompt management of Tuscany defects according to their rules is a basic courtesy to the Tuscany developers who are kind enough to to help us, that's all. OTOH, this test-driven development thing was my personal response to the confused state that I alone had let the bug tracker get into, which took me a few days to disentangle. I would really like the team to stick with it even now that Matthew is working on SDO as well as SCA, because I do believe that a smaller amount of work earlier will save us more time later, and reduce the number of unwanted side-effects that we see. Documenting how the project is run is a big undertaking. I think it would be a Good Thing, and to be authoritative, one that all the projects leads would need to take part in. It just so happens that I have on my desk right now a copy of Karl Fogel(my hero)'s book Producing Open Source Software, and he points to the Hacker's Guide to Subversion (http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/www/hacking.html) as a good example of project guidelines (well he would say that, wouldn't he?). Would you like me to create a wiki page with the subheadings defined in that document? If everyone likes that idea, then I promise to contribute some stuff under some of the subheadings. (For more, see http://producingoss.com/en/written-rules.html - I love that man). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
+1 to this idea. In the context of this thread, if I could encourage you to put you thoughts down about the bug filing and fixing process that would be excellent. Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap messages now validate correctly with soapscope and Java Xerces, which I think must be what soapscope is using (since the error messages are identical). The changes do the following: For the wsdl: The soap:binding and soap:operation elements have moved position. It's not easy to understand why they were not valid at the bottom but this does make them validate. The xsi:type attibutes have gone from those same elements As a bonus the namespace prefix which was always tns3 is now soap For the soap messages: xsi:type attribute has been removed from the top level element within the soap body This is all in DUNLIN, but I propose to package it as a release now (well, tomorrow = Thursday actually). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Hi Folks, I'd like to petition to get Bug #11004 (WSDL Generated Does Not Validate) and Request #10994 (Business Exceptions Data Returned to Client) in this release. Judging from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sorry not sure who that is) final comment on #11004, I think this ticket is being confused with Request #11012 (Visual Studio Consumption of SCA Generated WSDL) as suggested by the referenced by the Tuscany ticket. I believe #11012 should have the Tuscany ticket associated. If #11004 is being confused, I'd like to raise it hear again. The gist of #11004 is WSDL validation, and if I am correct about this, the fix seems to be simple, and outlined in the ticket. As for #10994, it appears that consensus has been reached on suppressing the backtrace. I've included a code snippet for evaluation in the ticket that could be applied to the SOAP wrapper (and easily adapted to the other bindings). best, Mike On Jun 11, 7:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, sounds like a good idea. I still have some binding documentation that I want to write but that won't be shipped with the release. Are there any of bug fixes that we need to get in. Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Michael Caplan wrote: I'd like to petition to get Bug #11004 (WSDL Generated Does Not Validate) and Request #10994 (Business Exceptions Data Returned to Client) in this release. Judging from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sorry not sure who that is) final comment on #11004, I think this ticket is being confused with Request #11012 (Visual Studio Consumption of SCA Generated WSDL) as suggested by the referenced by the Tuscany ticket. I believe #11012 should have the Tuscany ticket associated. If #11004 is being confused, I'd like to raise it hear again. The gist of #11004 is WSDL validation, and if I am correct about this, the fix seems to be simple, and outlined in the ticket. It was me, but only from the point of view of getting that bug processed according to our standard procedure for handing off bugs to Tuscany. Matthew had already raised it as a Tuscany JIRA, and my contribution was to update his link from 11004 to the Tuscany defect with one that would be clickable from within the PECL bug tracker. The Tuscany issue: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1297 is indeed the one about suppressing the xsi:type attribute, so I see what you mean. But I'm not sure whether the other one is also in Tuscany or in Matthew's WSDL generation code. I'll hope that he responds ... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
Hi Caroline, Thanks for the clarification. As I see it TUSCANY-1297 should be assigned to #11012. #11004 is an issue that I feel I was able to solve by hacking the SCA WSDL generator code. I think Matthew may disagree with my raised issue (looking forward to his response), but it is entirely solvable in the PHP code. Best, Mike -Original Message- From: phpsoa@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Maynard Sent: June 11, 2007 12:15 PM To: phpsoa@googlegroups.com Subject: [phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out? Michael Caplan wrote: I'd like to petition to get Bug #11004 (WSDL Generated Does Not Validate) and Request #10994 (Business Exceptions Data Returned to Client) in this release. Judging from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sorry not sure who that is) final comment on #11004, I think this ticket is being confused with Request #11012 (Visual Studio Consumption of SCA Generated WSDL) as suggested by the referenced by the Tuscany ticket. I believe #11012 should have the Tuscany ticket associated. If #11004 is being confused, I'd like to raise it hear again. The gist of #11004 is WSDL validation, and if I am correct about this, the fix seems to be simple, and outlined in the ticket. It was me, but only from the point of view of getting that bug processed according to our standard procedure for handing off bugs to Tuscany. Matthew had already raised it as a Tuscany JIRA, and my contribution was to update his link from 11004 to the Tuscany defect with one that would be clickable from within the PECL bug tracker. The Tuscany issue: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1297 is indeed the one about suppressing the xsi:type attribute, so I see what you mean. But I'm not sure whether the other one is also in Tuscany or in Matthew's WSDL generation code. I'll hope that he responds ... E-mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Henry Schein is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?
I had a look at all these today. The nub of the problem is that both #11012 and #11004 point at JIRA #1297. I created the confusion in the first place when I raised Tuscany JIRA 1297 - I raised the original JIRA with a title that presupposed what the problem was. Really the problem is that the WSDL will not validate with visual studio, soapscope, oXygen, or, I now discover, XERCES. There appear to be at least two problems: xsi:type upsets visual studio the order of the tns3: elements upsets XERCES I assume, though can't be sure, because I have not tried them, that soapscope and oXygen are upset by the second problem. So there are two problems with the given WSDL; they are described in pecl 11012 and 11004 respectively; at the moment both problems are described in JIRA 1297. I have just put a clarifying append on that JIRA and will see if they want me to split it into a second JIRA. And for reference: pecl 11012 is the one about xsi:type. We could fix this in the SCA PHP code by hunting down occurences of xsi:type and removing them from the serialised XML. Or we can wait for Tuscany to fix this one. I last nagged Tuscany about it a week or so ago. pecl 11004 is the one about the existence and or order of tns3:operation and tns3:binding. I believe, from my experiment with XERCES today that it is the order of the elements. The change that Michael supplied removes these two elements, but I don't think it's OK to do that - it makes it validate XML-wise, but it's not valid WSDL or at least the WSDL we want to generate. Matthew --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
