I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a derivative work.
So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit test. I was looking on the web site I commented before, most of them are GPL : (, but I found this 2: http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/ http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/ Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot tell for sure if they are compatible with ASF license. Regards, Adriano Crestani On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you code > to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be considered a > derivative work. > > Cheers, > > On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell people what > > tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that having a > > list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful. > > > > Simon > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem to > distribute > > > the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained on the > web site > > > I could be helpful :) > > > > > > Regards, > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany release? > > >>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can see some > > >>justification for this, but even then it would be possible for people > > >>who build the source to download the tool separately. > > >> > > >> Simon > > >> > > >>Adriano Crestani wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Hi, > > >>> > > >>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process and don't > > >>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever wants to > modify > > >> > > >>the > > >> > > >>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the > modifications > > >>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for another > text > > >>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released source. I > really > > >> > > >>dont > > >> > > >>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open source > C/C++ > > >>>unit test tools on [1]. > > >>> > > >>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php > > >>> > > >>>Regards, > > >>>Adriano Crestani > > >>> > > >>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. I updated > the > > >>>>wiki with a documentation feature. > > >>>> > > >>>> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Next+R > > >>>>elease+Contents > > >>>> > > >>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these features? > > >>>> > > >>>>-------------------- > > >>>>Brady Johnson > > >>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > > >>>>Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM > > >>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > >>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > roadmap] > > >>>> > > >>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get started and > > >>>>user > > >>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster? > > >>>> > > >>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story between Native > and > > >>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a sample of a > > >>>>composite which include C++ and Java components. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that list to > > >>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be: > > >>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp). > > >>>>>2) build system move to ant > > >>>>>(enough there for a release) > > >>>>> > > >>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the data > model. > > >>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a proposal for > > >>>>>that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Cheers, > > >>>>> > > >>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Hello all, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native Next Release > > >>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+Ne > > >>>>>>xt+R > > >>>>>>elease+Contents > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, what's > the > > >>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the changes? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>-------------------- > > >>>>>>Brady Johnson > > >>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > > >>>>>>Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM > > >>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > >>>>>>roadmap] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post: > > >>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't like making > > >>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test suite. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples to test > > >>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not maintained and > > >>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up a unit > > >>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start this (use > > >>>>>>cppunit?) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make discussion. > > >>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the build > > >>>>>>>process using make. I've looked through some of the makefiles and > > >>>>>>>they're horrendous. :) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build from > source > > >>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC 8 so it > can > > >>>> > > >>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled on > automake > > >>>> > > >>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source projects. > > >>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate it > ;-) ... > > >>>> > > >>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you believe an > ant > > >>>> > > >>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along with that. > > >>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the build > would > > >>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ?? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>-------------------- > > >>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > >>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > >>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM > > >>>>>>>To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > >>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap] > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the next SCA > > >>>>>>>Native release. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked around a > > >>>>>>>>bit and > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans for > > >>>>>>>>TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few ideas and I was > > >>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to the 1.0 C++ > > >>>>>>>C&I spec version > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can you > > >>>> > > >>>>elaborate? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss this. I'm > all > > >>>> > > >>>>>>>for > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>simplifying the build though! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure (slight > > >>>>>>>>changes to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>ok > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>sounds good. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>-------------------- > > >>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > >>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > >>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Cheers, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>-- > > >>>>>>>Pete > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Pete > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
