Hi Brady, Agreed, I think SDO unit testing infrastructure is enough. However, SDO test cases are not passing successfully, and I'm not sure if it's out of date or not. I think before each commit we should run the project_test to check if everything is alright and add new tests for new implemented features, but I'm not sure it's was being done for SDO.
Regards, Adriano Crestani On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well then, if we cant use CxxTest, and if DAS/SDO Native already have a > unit testing infrastructure in place, then I vote we just use/copy that > infrastructure for SCA Native. > > > -------------------- > Brady Johnson > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > PS: SCA Native used to have a unit test suite, but it was WAY out of > date and didn't even compile, so I asked for it to be removed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Adriano Crestani > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:46 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap] > > Thanks ant, > > As ant confirmed, we cannot use CxxText even on unit test source code, > then we should definitely look for another tool or leave it the way it > is. > > SCA unit tests - I never tested > SDO unit tests(sdo_test project) - It needs some maintenance and does > not use any unit test tool DAS unit tests(das_test project) - working > fine and does not use any unit test tool > > Regards, > Adriano Crestani > > On 10/24/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded > > > license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used. > > Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a > > > distro, we can't use anything LGPL. > > > > ...ant > > > > On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So who do we have to check with? > > > > > > Brady > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM > > > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > > roadmap] > > > > > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went > > > round this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't > > > find anything. I'm no legal expert. > > > > > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before > > > using it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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+Nat > > > > > >>ive+ > > > > > >>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+N > > > > > >>>>ativ > > > > > >>>>e+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 > > > > > >> > > > > > >>1.0C++ > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Pete > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - 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] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
