Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) Adriano Crestani
On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > Hi Haleh, > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon it's > > considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right Simon? > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern. > > Simon > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and test > tool > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work? > >> > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <[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. > >>> > >>>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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>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 > >> > >>1.0C++ > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>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] > >
