Hi Kelvin,
I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes
- ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the 2.0.1interfaces.
Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...
- C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html
This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "
Sample source code is available to
download<http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java-download.html>as a
separate distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive to
build and run the samples.'
- This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays
:To run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
instructions at Tuscany SDO Java
Overview<http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java.html>,
which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
environment.
However at this page I see no instructions. Should this be the
getInvolved link under development?
I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it another try again
tomorrow.
Haleh
On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ant,
here's a bit more context, since you asked about whether there had
been
discussion of this topic ...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cheers, Kelvin.
On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More comments inline...
>
> On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
are
> > there in sdo-api directory)
> >
> > this is the anomaly that I pointed out in the last release cycle in
> > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a
single
> > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
folder
> > would overwrite one another, hence their appearance in the next level
> > down. We can not satisfy both requirements! Hence for each archive I
was
> > considering <common-root>/<specific-distro-root> to be the "root"
folder
>
>
> Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
>
>
> - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include
a
> > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > This was as it was in M2 and M1. I followed the established
pattern. I
> > beleive this to be correct.
>
>
> That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> which is why I asked if there had been any discussion about it. I don't
> remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api
files
> have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in
the
> sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
least a
> clear explanation found why its ok like this.
>
>
> - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
> > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
>
>
> I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
that
> will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
signatures.
>
>
>
> - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
(impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced
requirement
> > to unpack in to a common root directory. I guess I could add a bin
> > directory to the binary distribution, but I think for the most part
people
> > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the
samples) or
> > the source distros. It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper
I
> > think, but your suggestions are very welcome.
>
>
> As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I
think
> some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually
prefer
> using separate folders.
>
> - I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> > included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in
the
> > samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
> >
> > there's no javadoc in the src distros, the javadoc in the samples
> > distros is for the samples, the javadoc in the bin distro is for the
API to
> > assist in programming. This was how the discussion on archive
organisation
> > resolved in M2.
>
>
> Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the
same
> folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros,
the
> samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are two
src
> distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this is
a
> blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api module
> under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then the
next
> release could be:
> - a single src distribution that includes src for everything
> - a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency jars,
> the javadoc, and the samples
> - the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo
>
> ...ant
>
