Yes! See - http://apache.markmail.org/message/bd7dw4ixeauvyznk.
...ant On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Dave Sowerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Ant, > > Thanks for offering to perform this task! > > Have you managed to make any progress with this? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:15 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, now that it looks like everyone wants this to go ahead I'll go do > this, > > not sure if I'll have time to finish it today and I'm out tomorrow but > I'll > > try to make sure the artifacts are built and available by the end of the > > weekend. > > > > ...ant > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Dave Sowerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Could anyone give me any time scales for the 1.2.1 release? > >> > >> The release I'm preparing is due to be released within the next week > >> and is unfortunately blocked awaiting this update. > >> > >> I'm available to assist in any way necessary. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Dave. > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 AM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Sowerby MEng MBCS > >> > > > > > > -- > Dave Sowerby MEng MBCS >
