[phpsoa] Re: Time for DUNLIN to peck its way out?

2007-07-11 Thread Matthew Peters

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?

2007-07-10 Thread Graham Charters

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?

2007-06-14 Thread Caroline Maynard



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 ...


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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?

2007-06-14 Thread simonslaws



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?

2007-06-14 Thread Matthew Peters

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?

2007-06-14 Thread Caroline Maynard

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?

2007-06-14 Thread Caroline Maynard

[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?

2007-06-14 Thread simonslaws

+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?

2007-06-13 Thread Matthew Peters

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?

2007-06-11 Thread Michael Caplan

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?

2007-06-11 Thread simonslaws

I'm happy to take a look at #11004 (everyone else has had a go so it's
probably my turn :-). I see the difference between this and #11012 (I
remember the xsi:type stuff  coming up ages ago in Tuscany SDO as
something that was required to get the C++ SCA implentation going - if
I come across any info I'll see if we can fix that too).

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?

2007-06-11 Thread Caroline Maynard

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?

2007-06-11 Thread Caplan, Michael

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?

2007-06-11 Thread Matthew Peters

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---