Hi all, We just had a good IRC chat about the forthcoming Tuscany C++ M2 release. Main things decided: - We will try to get Release Candidate 1 out by end of this week/early next - Items in RC1 have been decided & volunteered for, the list will be available at http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyCpp/Tasks (when I've done it)
Transcript below. Cheers! Andy 18:00:29<robbinspg>tick tock ... it's 18:00 BST 18:00:35<ajborley>Hi all - my clock says it's 18:00 - good to go? 18:00:43<ajborley>Pete beat me to it 18:01:02<robbinspg>I live slightly further east than you ;-) 18:01:03<jsdelfino>hey 18:01:27<robbinspg>Are you going to run this Andy? 18:01:41<ajborley>Yep, I'm happy to run this 18:01:49<ajborley>OK, so we've put a list of items up on the wiki 18:02:03<ajborley>http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyCpp/Tasks 18:02:34<ajborley>and there's a lot there, I expect quite a few things won't make it if we want to get a first RC out by the end of this week 18:02:57<ajborley>So, the first question is - is an RC by the end of the week a good idea? 18:03:15<ajborley>Any items that really should go in & will take more than a week? 18:03:47<robbinspg>The first RC does not have to be perfect and I'd like to see us have the infrastructure to make the release in place 18:04:14<robbinspg>so we know we can turn the handle and create a RC 18:04:16<jsdelfino>yes, I guess the first RC is there to allow us to polish the build infra 18:04:22<ajborley>Yep sounds good - do you think the infrastructure can be updated by the end of the week? 18:04:46<robbinspg>that means getting the licence stuff correct and a working build and package on linux and windows 18:05:05<robbinspg>yes I think it's doable 18:05:08<ajborley>Yep - doesn't look too bad 18:05:37-->|slaws ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/ibm/x-4d3c867d81249199) has joined #tuscany 18:05:52<jsdelfino>what do we need to do to the Linux build? is it good as of today? 18:05:56<robbinspg>so I'm currently updating the licence info so mark that one down to me 18:06:30<robbinspg>The linux build is ok but we need to make sure that make dist works 18:06:40<ajborley>I think te linux build is mostly good - not sure what the script that packages bin and src distros is good 18:06:59<robbinspg>and that the resulting distro contains all the right stuff to enable ./configure, make in the samples 18:07:13<robbinspg>That took some work for M1 18:07:20<jsdelfino>ah ok, I can help test the linux build if it helps 18:07:45<ajborley>great - thanks 18:08:19<ajborley>Should we go through the list to decide if items should be in or out? 18:08:24<robbinspg>Windows is built via a bat which basically runs the vc6 compile followed by copying/zipping 18:08:54<jsdelfino>are we building with vc6, 7 or 8 for this release? 18:09:04<ajborley>ok. How up-to-date are the vc7 files? 18:09:11<ajborley>sorry vc6 18:09:33<ajborley>I think we still have an issue with vc8 18:09:46<robbinspg>I vote we stay with vc6 for this releas 18:09:58<ajborley>I know vc7 is good, but I don't have a vc6 system 18:10:17<robbinspg>VC6 projects don't work at all at the moment but are easily fixable 18:10:21<slaws>which version of vc7? 18:10:28<ajborley>Pete - could you do vc6 things for the release? 18:10:35<robbinspg>it;s the generating of the batch makefiles which makes vc6 attractive 18:10:36<ajborley>I think mine is vc7.1 18:10:39-->|jmarino ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #tuscany 18:10:45<ajborley>Pete - agreed 18:10:54<jsdelfino>I suggest we stick to one, and maybe even take out the other versions, it's a little confusing to have multiple versions of the project files, some up to date, some outdated 18:10:56<ajborley>it's nice to have a command line build 18:10:59<slaws>if pete can generate the make can we use them? 18:11:19<ajborley>Yep, vc6 make worked with vc7 last time 18:11:27-->|gwinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined #tuscany 18:11:33<slaws>k - sounds like a plan 18:11:38<robbinspg>I will fix up VC6 and generate the makefiles... and oh well I may as well do the distro packagingtoo 18:11:47<ajborley>:) cool 18:12:12<jsdelfino>ok, I'll try to get a VC6 install on my machine, I only have vc8 now 18:12:36<jsdelfino>so we are using VC6 for this release right? 18:12:38<robbinspg>well you should be able to run the command line with your VC7 I think 18:12:53<ajborley>jsdelfino - it would be good to try the command line build with vc8 18:13:09<ajborley>+1 for vc6 build only 18:13:17<gwinn>I mainly use VC 7 so I can test that if no one else does. 18:13:25<jsdelfino>vc8 doesn't work at all for now, SDOs don't run, throwing an incompatible list exception 18:13:28<robbinspg>ok. I'll post on dev when I have a working VC6 and generated make 18:13:41<ajborley>great 18:13:56<jsdelfino>I'll try to get a VC6 install 18:14:04<robbinspg>So.... what samples will we include in the distro? 18:14:05<ajborley>So the other things we should work on this week are docs and samples 18:14:14<ajborley>still quicker than me :) 18:14:17<robbinspg>jsdelfino ... I don;t think you need VC6 18:14:57<ajborley>samples- Calculator, PythonCalculator, RubyCalculator, BigBank are all good at the moment 18:15:06<ajborley>not sure about SupplyChain 18:15:24<robbinspg>I think that's good. Let's leave SupplyChain out for now 18:15:50<ajborley>RubyBank? jsdelfino - do you know the status of that one? 18:15:58<robbinspg>How are we going to package the "optional" language extensions - Ruby, Pyhton 18:15:58<jsdelfino>yes, it's working 18:16:18<jsdelfino>can we add a simple HelloWorld? what do you think? 18:16:35<robbinspg>Calulator is our HelloWorld 18:16:49<ajborley>I think Calculator is simple enough 18:17:00<jsdelfino>okay :) that's fine too 18:17:10<robbinspg>I don't think we should add anything else until we get what is already there build/packaged/tested/documented 18:17:21<ajborley>yep, agreed 18:17:25|<--rfeng has left freenode (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 18:17:46<ajborley>So samples are Calculator, PythonCalculator, RubyCalculator, BigBank, RubyBank 18:17:54<robbinspg>+1 18:18:02<jsdelfino>any PHP? 18:18:02<ajborley>We need to get these documented 18:18:23<ajborley>There's a question about the PHP extension - should that be included? 18:18:47<ajborley>It only does services without refereneces or properties at the mo 18:18:48<robbinspg>does it work? 18:19:13<slaws>it does what it does - just not very extensive 18:19:20<jsdelfino>if we include the PHP extension, we need a sample for it 18:19:36<slaws>i made the calculart sample work with it 18:19:55<slaws>but that possibly got factored out in the reorg 18:20:08<slaws>i think i made a patch 18:20:17<slaws>but that might not be relevant now 18:20:21<robbinspg>so are we going to include the following language extensions: cpp, Python, Ruby, PHP 18:21:03<ajborley>I'm happy with them, but we will need a PHPCalculator sample 18:21:04<slaws>if you go with it we would have to mark it "PHP patial" 18:21:07<robbinspg>We need to document how to build/install each of htese 18:21:10<ajborley>yep 18:21:15<jsdelfino>I think that if we want to include the PHP extension it should support references and simple properties 18:21:25<robbinspg>Shall we leave PHP out of RC1 then 18:21:40<slaws>y - i think thats wise 18:21:41<robbinspg>we can add it in later after proving the build etc works 18:21:52<ajborley>ok, I'm good with that 18:22:08<jsdelfino>yes, we can leave it out of RC1, and keep the option to add it to RC2 or 3 :) 18:22:14<ajborley>Maybe get it in after RC1 18:22:39<ajborley>So what docs do we need? 18:22:57<ajborley>How to build SCA/SDO 18:23:06<ajborley>How to build/run the samples 18:23:15<robbinspg>I was determined to get no further than RC3 for M1, that's why we got RC3, RC3a, RC3b ;-) 18:23:31<jsdelfino>how to build the various extensions (the pre-req software etc.) 18:23:40<robbinspg>all good so far 18:23:40<ajborley>How to create a component for C++/Python/etc 18:24:20<ajborley>Design docs? 18:24:39<ajborley>e.g. "how to write an extension"? 18:24:39<robbinspg>The minimum is how to build/install core and the extensions plus how to build and run the samples 18:24:46<ajborley>yep - for RC1 18:24:48<robbinspg>no design docs 18:24:53<ajborley>agreed 18:24:59<robbinspg>no time for RC1 18:25:17<jsdelfino>maybe we can use the doc of the samples to describe the PM for Python and Ruby 18:25:33<jsdelfino>yes, no design docs for RC1 18:25:52<robbinspg>yes to samples describing the PM 18:26:15<ajborley>+1 also 18:26:56<robbinspg>what about stdcxx? If we get optionally building SDO with this do we document it? SCA will not have this option for this release 18:26:57<ajborley>OK - I'll go through the wiki & put [RC1] next to the things we've decided to go into it 18:27:27<ajborley>what's teh status with that? Can that be ready y end of the week? 18:27:43<gwinn>If we don't document stdcxx for SDO then there's not much point having it. 18:27:45<ajborley>y -> by 18:28:38<ajborley>gwinn - could that be documented by the end of the week? 18:28:52<jsdelfino>don't we have SDO working with stdcxx? what is there to document? 18:29:03<robbinspg>That was my question ;-) We should have the optional stdcxx build for SDO but not for SCA 18:29:09<jsdelfino>yes 18:29:16<ajborley>yep 18:29:30<robbinspg>and if you build SDO with stdcxx it won't work with SCA 18:29:44<robbinspg>and that's fine for now 18:29:51<jsdelfino>yes I think that's ok for now 18:30:05<ajborley>agreed 18:30:07<jsdelfino>we have to go step by step 18:30:17<ajborley>so the release packages we're doing are: 18:30:20<gwinn>We need a small amount of documentation to explain how to build with stdcxx 18:30:37<ajborley>sdo on stdcxx for Linux bin 18:30:41<robbinspg>yes... thanks for volunteering gwinn ;-) 18:30:49<gwinn>ok 18:31:02<ajborley>sdo for Linux bin 18:31:42<ajborley>I give up - SDO with/without stdcxx on Linux/Windows 18:31:42<robbinspg>not sure we should distro the SDO with stdcxx as bin 18:32:15<ajborley>yep. if it doesn't work with sca will having it there just muddy the water 18:32:20<ajborley>? 18:32:33<jsdelfino>can we have the stdcxx option documented, so people can build it from source? 18:32:34<robbinspg>we have SDO src lin and win + SDO bin lin and win (vc6) 18:32:53<ajborley>yep. with teh docs for using stdcxx 18:32:58<robbinspg>agreed 18:33:02<jsdelfino>+1 18:33:15<ajborley>and then SCA src lin & win + SCA bin lin & win 18:33:17<gwinn>I back jsdelfino. stdcxx + SDO only from source 18:33:28<robbinspg>now for SCA we have src package for lin and win 18:33:48<robbinspg>and... what do we put in the bin??? 18:33:53<robbinspg>all the extensions 18:34:00<robbinspg>or jsut core cpp , ws 18:34:02<ajborley>everything I would say 18:34:27<jsdelfino>yes, unless it breaks on machines that do not have the prereq software, but I don 18:34:30<jsdelfino>'t think it does 18:34:32<ajborley>the runtime won't need what it doesn't use 18:34:39<robbinspg>well we could package the language extensions separately 18:34:59<ajborley>I think a single package would be better 18:35:11<jsdelfino>I'm ok with both :) 18:35:12<robbinspg>agreed... let's try for that and see what breaks 18:35:20<ajborley>yep :) 18:36:06<ajborley>what about MacOSX? there was a patch for that, but I don't know what the status is 18:36:17<ajborley>I also don't have access to any mac machines 18:36:19<robbinspg>I'll do Mac OSX 18:36:32<robbinspg>so long as someone buys me a new PowerBook 18:36:47<jsdelfino>for MacOSX the first question is: is Axis2C shipping bins on MacOSX? 18:36:50<ajborley>:) do we want RC1 on OSX? Could anyone volunteer? 18:37:12<ajborley>Good point - I doubt it 18:37:22<robbinspg>let's get RC1 out and see if the resulting src release can be built on Mac 18:37:36<jsdelfino>we should ask oisin what he wants to do, since he contributed that patch and tested it 18:37:44<robbinspg>our one linux bin distro will be???? 18:38:10<ajborley>the RHEL3 one seemed to work in lots of places last time 18:38:11<robbinspg>I built on RHEL3 last time 18:38:23<ajborley>it worked on my fedora 5 box 18:38:32<jsdelfino>worked on my rhel4 18:38:43<robbinspg>ok so let's stick with that 18:38:59<ajborley>dunno if anyone's got a non-redhat linux distro around? 18:39:01|<--rfen1 has left freenode (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 18:39:15<jsdelfino>do u have the right prereqs on your rhel3 for ruby, python and php? 18:39:25<robbinspg>not yet! 18:39:38<jsdelfino>:) 18:39:39<robbinspg>I couldn't sort out PHP 18:39:44<robbinspg>but yes to the others 18:39:59<robbinspg>but that is fine for RC1 18:40:03<ajborley>yep 18:40:03<jsdelfino>ok good 18:40:24<jsdelfino>going through the extensions, I think we won't have a javascript :) 18:40:49<ajborley>Dependencies - Axis 0.93? 0.94 is out soon but i don't think this week 18:40:53<robbinspg>So here is what I think I am doing: Licence headers, VC6 build, windows distro 18:41:16<robbinspg>0.93 for now 18:41:25<jsdelfino>I tested the axis2c trunk / close to 0.94 yesterday and it worked, I just had to change one char* ot a const char* in our code 18:41:34<jsdelfino>but 0.93 is good for now, yes 18:41:38<ajborley>cool 18:42:14<ajborley>the libxml2 stuff for SDO is the same as last release right? 18:42:17<jsdelfino>REST will work but only REST POST, GET doesn't work well with 0.93 18:42:33<robbinspg>jsdelfino to look at Linux build and distro? 18:42:38<gwinn>libxml2 - yes. 18:43:13<robbinspg>ajborley (Release Manager) to take it easy? 18:43:21<jsdelfino>yes I can help with the Linux build and distro, but I'm using RHEL4 18:43:24<ajborley>:) yep 18:43:36<ajborley>I'll look at docs & samples 18:43:49<robbinspg>RHEL4 should be fine for getting the automake to generate the correct stuff 18:44:04<gwinn>Am I supposed to volunteer now? 18:44:08<robbinspg>yes 18:44:32<gwinn>OK. stdcxx docs & linux implementation. What else? 18:44:48<robbinspg>I'm happy doing the SDO build/distro as it's nice and easy 18:44:58<ajborley>I guess I have to do the package signing stuff? 18:45:08<gwinn>OK. Just show me how for next time. 18:45:15<ajborley>and build the actual packages? 18:45:34<slaws>chaps, i'm holding back just at the moment as i'm knee deep in PHP stuff 18:45:40<ajborley>(that go up on people.apache.org?) 18:45:45<robbinspg>yes... when we have the mechanism in place we need to run the complete build/package then sign, generate md5 18:45:48<jsdelfino>jsdelfino will be at ApacheCon next week so it'll be convenient if we need help from the Apache incubator, Axis2C or stdcxx teams 18:46:20<robbinspg>great 18:46:42<robbinspg>so Andy will now update Wiki to reflect what we just agreed to?? 18:47:01<ajborley>yep - I'll put RC1 & names next to the items 18:47:05<jsdelfino>one more question: 18:47:17<jsdelfino>are we going to support complex types in Python? 18:47:18<jsdelfino>:) 18:47:26<ajborley>not for RC1 :) 18:47:50<jsdelfino>we could just map them to strings if it's simpler, but I think we need something for RC2 or 3... 18:48:14<jsdelfino>an extension with no XML complex type support is very limited 18:48:23<ajborley>true 18:48:24<robbinspg>Let's see what the sample/extension loks like in an RC1 first 18:48:34<jsdelfino>ok 18:49:03<ajborley>ok - any more items? 18:49:07<jsdelfino>yes 18:49:23<jsdelfino>we need to doc the level of spec we support and limitations 18:49:29<jsdelfino>a section in our README I guess 18:49:35<jsdelfino>I can help with that 18:49:43<ajborley>+1 for README 18:49:47<robbinspg>yes, could you invent 3 more days in the week 18:49:54<jsdelfino>do we need similar doc for SDO? 18:49:56<ajborley>what is the situation? are we at 0.95? 18:50:15<robbinspg>0.95 for C++ C&I 18:50:31<robbinspg>latest Assembly draft is 0.96 18:50:37<robbinspg>do we match that? 18:51:24<robbinspg>I guess SDO support is stated as 2.01 spec same as last time as there is no new draft available 18:51:40<gwinn>SDO deviations from spec would be quite short unless you include bugs. 18:52:02<gwinn>eg we don't do type safe interface (and that's in teh spec) 18:52:16<ajborley>I think there are bits of 0.96 assembly that we don't support 18:52:19<robbinspg>yes... that's already doc'd 18:52:23<jsdelfino>we match 0.96 with some limitations 18:52:34<ajborley>e.g. full property support 18:52:48<robbinspg>ok... if you know what they are then we should doc them 18:52:49<jsdelfino>y 18:53:13<ajborley>ok, in the README 18:53:27<ajborley>cool. anything else? 18:53:31<robbinspg>Jiras 18:54:02<robbinspg>Are there any high priority issues that need fixing 18:54:15<ajborley>I don't think there are in SCA 18:54:28<gwinn>Nothing in SDO that can be done in the time. 18:54:34<robbinspg>also... we should raise Jiras for ALL check-ins from here on in 18:55:03<jsdelfino>+1 18:55:09<robbinspg>makes it easier to see where we are 18:55:20<ajborley>yep - shall we each do that or shall I raise a load based on this conversation? 18:55:40<jsdelfino>both maybe :) 18:55:40<robbinspg>thanks for volunteering ;-) 18:55:46<ajborley>ok - will do 18:56:14<ajborley>I'll assign them too :) 18:56:52<jsdelfino>I am in the middle of a change to simplify the target deploy structure (remove the req. for configuration/ and packages/), I'll create a JIRA for that 18:57:06<ajborley>Will that get into RC1? 18:58:12<jsdelfino>I'd like to, I'm almost done with this, checking in later today 18:58:15<robbinspg>yes... I hope so 18:58:18<ajborley>great 18:58:48<robbinspg>ok. I need to go and open some wine. Anythin else to discuss? 18:59:00<ajborley>Not from me 18:59:08<gwinn>ditto 18:59:23<jsdelfino>a little early for wine here, 11am :) 18:59:43<jsdelfino>thanks guys, have a good evening... 18:59:57<ajborley>never too early! right - see you on the dev list 18:59:57<robbinspg>bye. 19:00:03<ajborley>bye 19:00:07<ajborley>& thanks all 19:00:30<jsdelfino>bye 19:00:39<gwinn>bye
