Good stuff. Anything checked in will be included. I'm not ready yet to
freeze the release.

We have a few problems with Python and Rest on linux and I haven't yet tried
out the new PHP extension. I've made changes for building the distribution
for Linux but still need to make some changes on windows.

Good news is that your SDO changes seem to work with SCA.

Cheers,


On 23/02/07, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I've changed my mind about changes to SDO that should be in M3. I've just
checked in an alteration to Type::getProperties that is good for a 25%
speed-up in the overall execution of SDO. (See TUSCANY-1136, r510951). I
would like to see that included in M3.

Regards,

Geoff.

On 19/02/07, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pete,
>
> There are no pending changes in SDO that we should wait for if you are
> looking to generate a candidate this week (week beginning 19-Feb). I
will
> aim to complete as much as I can from 1078 (which may help resolve some
php
> issues), 959 (which I am part way through) and 747 (load an XML document
> without a schema).
>
> I also think we should close 750 and 95.
> 750 describes schema validation and that is not likely to be done in
> advance of the spec group's conclusions.
> 95 describes the type safe interface, which again is unlikely to ever be
> done for C++.
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoff.
>
> On 16/02/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 16/02/07, Geoffrey Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15/02/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll review the SCA Jiras and we can agree on which are must-fix
for
> > the
> > > > release. Can someone review the SDO C++ Jiras and propose a list
of
> > > > must-fix?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll do the JIRA review for SDO C++
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Geoff. Are there any features in the pipeline that should be in
> > the
> > M3 release? Assuming we cut a candidate next week is there anything we
> > should wiat for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
>
>




--
Pete

Reply via email to