On 6/23/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have created a maintenance branch */incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo- cpp-pre2.1/* Work towards SDO 2.1 specification compliance will continue in HEAD. Cheers, On 22/06/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As is shown by the analysis that Michael Yoder is doing, comparing SDO 2.1spec API vs Tuscany SDO C++ API, it is clear that there will be a fair > amount of work involved in getting the Tuscany code in to shape. Some > changes are fairly simple but others may need wide ranging changes in the > way Tuscany SDO is implemented. This will not be done overnight. > > I'd like to propose that we cut a branch of the current code and start the > 2.1 work in HEAD (or should the 2.1 work start in a branch?). I know the > PHP SCA community are using a cut later than M3 with some fixes I have > written and expect them to raise more problems from time to time, this is > why I'd like a "maintenance" branch available while we work on a 2.1compliany implementation. > > Would anyone else (committer or not) like to help out with the 2.1effort? > > Cheers, > > -- > Pete > -- Pete
Sorry Pete, was a bit slow off the mark getting to your email. The branch approach works fine for PHP SCA_SDO. We should be doing ongoing development for C++ SDO in HEAD so no problems from my point of view. I don't know how much of the non specified interface to C++ SDO the PHP SDO implementatoin is using if any but we should be trying to work toward the specified interface also. Simon
