I have applied a change (revision 556081). Now SCA HEAD requires SDO HEAD.
Cheers,
--
Pete
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or option 1.
+1
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we
42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
changes
There are 2 options here:
1. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in SDO head and SCA head. This will
cause SCA head to not compile with SDO M3.
2. Make the sdo spec 2.1 changes in an SDO b
tware Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
changes
The current sta
The current state is that SCA HEAD will only build against the sdo
branch or M3. The minor change was renaming IntegerType to IntType
which I put in the SCA HEAD but then backed out. If everyone agrees
that HEAD SCA should build against HEAD SDO I will re-apply the
change.
Cheers,
--
Pete
-
rom: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
> changes
>
> The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
> changes
ve] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec
> changes
>
> The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
> changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
> of the spec changes will cause instability.
>
> I think ongoing development
The alternative is for us to develop SCA Head against a stable (M3)
version of SDO?
On 13/07/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
of the spec changes wil
The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec
changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some
of the spec changes will cause instability.
I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need
an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA
Hello all,
I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec
compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO
changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can be
made.
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogu
10 matches
Mail list logo
