Hi, I guess the changes after beta1 are to do with some restructuring of classes across packages. Also when I rolled back the SDO DB back to beta1, it seems to build fine with just changes to the package names it was using. So seems like beta1 seems ok for SDO Databinding. Let me do the same for the others and get back.
- Venkat On 6/20/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have cut a branch for the 0.91 release and have changed over the > artifact > versions to 0.91-incubating-SNAPSHOT. I am now trying to build it and > here > are some problems that I have observed. > > - The SDO dependency seems to be on the current > 1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOTversion from the trunk and there is sdo-impl > and sdo-lib that are being used > as dependencies in the SDO Databinding. This does not match with the last > sdo release of 1.0-incubating-beta1 . So how are we going to go forward > with > the SDO dependency for this SCA release? Are we going to roll back things > to beta1 (which is not something I'd be happy about) or should we consider > using a snapshot from the trunk (which is also something that we have > decided not to do) or is there another alternative to this? Could people > please help in this. > > Thanks > > - Venkat > > On 6/19/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > I would prefer not to delay SCA 0.91 for the DAS support. Unless we > > are confident that the DAS release can be created quickly, I think > > it's better to go ahead with SCA 0.91 as planned and defer the DAS > > support. > > > > An alternative packaging approach (which I am starting to think would > > be even better) is to reverse the dependency and have the DAS release > > ship the pieces identified by Luciano below. It should be possible > > (even desirable) for Tuscany SCA extensions that support another > > technology to ship as part of a release of that technology rather than > > always making them part of a Tuscany SCA release. > > > > Simon > > > > Venkata Krishnan wrote: > > > > > Hi Luciano, > > > > > > This is a surprise :)... I was planning on taking the 0.91 brn > tomorrow > > and > > > imediately start getting out RCs to vote on, but I can't do that if it > > > > needs > > > to include the DAS beta1 release???. > > > > > > What do people think? > > > > > > - Venkat > > > > > > On 6/18/07, Luciano Resende < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Sorry, I'm having some restricted internet access as I'm traveling > > >> since last week... that's probably why we haven't created a DAS > > >> release candidate yet... but the community and I think that we are > > >> ready to have one. > > >> > > >> Yes, the idea is to have a DAS beta1 dependency on SCA 0.91 on the > > >> following items: > > >> - implementation.das > > >> - implementation.data > > >> - some samples (maybe including the samples we didn't ship in 0.9) > > >> > > >> On 6/18/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > What will be the relationship between SCA 0.91 and DAS? I have > seen > > >> > some discussions on the list about a DAS release. Will SCA 0.91have > > >> > this DAS release as a dependency? > > >> > > > >> > Simon > > >> > > > >> > Luciano Resende wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I have updated the wiki [1] page with things that I'm working on, > > > and > > >> > > would like to have in 0.91 . > > >> > > > > >> > > As for the implementation.das question regarding it's canned > derby > > >> db, > > >> > > we recently created a db utility to create and populate the > > database, > > >> > > and I have plans to integrate with it. > > >> > > > > >> > > [1] > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 6/16/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Wow 571 license problems! after being clean for 0.90 just a > month > > >> ago. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> One question this brings up is what is actually intended to be > > >> > >> included in > > >> > >> 0.91? There's been quite a few new extensions and demo's etc > added > > >> > >> recently > > >> > >> but no one has said they want those included in 0.91. Should > they > > be > > >> by > > >> > >> default or should we just include things that are mentioned on > the > > >> > >> release > > >> > >> wiki page? If so anyone else care to help clean things up, add > > >> missing > > >> > >> license headers, check the distribution works and includes > > >> > >> dependencies etc? > > >> > >> The implementation.das is including an entire database in the > > >> src, is > > >> > >> there > > >> > >> any way that could be generated by the tests? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ...ant > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On 6/16/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Thanks Ant. So could we all please use this wiki page to put > > down > > >> > >> things > > >> > >> > that are going to be increments over 0.90. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Also I run the RAT on the trunk - just java/sca and here is > the > > >> > >> report. I > > >> > >> > intend to go and fix the missing headers just ahead of cutting > > the > > >> > >> branch. > > >> > >> > Before that if anybody would like to jump in and help with > this, > > >> > >> please feel > > >> > >> > free do so. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~svkrish/RAT_0.91/RAT_0.91.txt< http://people.apache.org/%7Esvkrish/RAT_0.91/RAT_0.91.txt> > < > > >> http://people.apache.org/%7Esvkrish/RAT_0.91/RAT_0.91.txt> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Thanks > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > - Venkat > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On 6/14/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Taking a branch around the 20th sounds ok to me. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > The high level things I'm focusing on for the 0.91 release > > are: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > - Simplification of using script components (working without > > > >> > >> > > .componentType > > >> > >> > > side files) > > >> > >> > > - First cut of the simpler binding/implementation SPI > > >> > >> > > - clean up of ajax and jsonrpc bindings > > >> > >> > > - The EJB binding > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I'd also said to someone on the user list I'd get WS > services > > >> without > > >> > >> > > wsdl > > >> > >> > > working so will try to do that as well. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Most of the code for those is close-ish to being done, > though > > >> there's > > >> > >> > > still > > >> > >> > > a whole lot of related sample work to get done. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I'd started a wiki page for 0.91 at > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Java+SCA+Next+Release+Contents > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > ...ant > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On 6/13/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks for the faith and encouragement. This is going to > > >> be my > > >> > >> first > > >> > >> > > > experience and I am sure of getting all the help from you > > >> folks > > >> to > > >> > >> > > pull > > >> > >> > > > this > > >> > >> > > > off successfully. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > So, to start with, I propose to cut a branch around June > > 20th, > > >> > >> > > 2007. If > > >> > >> > > > people are ok with this, then all that we'd like to be a > > part > > >> of > > >> > >> > > 0.91should > > >> > >> > > > get in by then (June 20th, 2007). Does that work fine > with > > >> > >> everybody? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Also, I'd also like to list down the significant additions > / > > >> > >> > > enhancements > > >> > >> > > > over 0.90 for the Release Notes. You can state the item > > here > > >> on > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> > > > thread > > >> > >> > > > and I will take care of recording it. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > - Venkat > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > On 6/13/07, Simon Nash < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > +1 from me too. I'm sure Venkat will do a fine job. > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Simon > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Simon Laws wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Yeah, Venkat did loads on the last release. +1 from > me > > >> for > > >> > >> Venkat > > >> > >> > > as > > >> > >> > > > > >> 0.91 RM > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Simon > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > +1 from me > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Luciano Resende > > >> Apache Tuscany Committer > > >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende< http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > > >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Venkat, do you know what new features we rely on in SDO over and above 1.0-inclubating-beta1? I.e. what's the implication of going back to that? Simon
