On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just checking > a > few things below where I am not clear - > > > NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed > > ----Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm
I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info on origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to see if that helped, but no. Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the felix > librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples javadoc > > -----?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by the > samples > use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place in > index.html where > we are listing all the other dependencies, right? I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but having got it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having these new libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed to the javadoc for this. Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample project > of > bin distribution. Trying... good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if you haven't already solved it Regards, > Amita > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is missing the > > tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is at > > > 3.2.0rather than > > > 3.2.1 > > > > Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the 1.0-incubatinglevel > > and has the woodstox version issue. > > > > Kelvin. > > > > > > > > On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments .... > > > > > > Binary zip file on Windows > > > ========================== > > > > > > MD5 is fine > > > I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding to the > > KEYS > > > file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS > > > and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I haven't > > spent > > > a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) > > > > > > > > > LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and jar > > versions > > > are correct > > > NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed > > > README seems fine > > > > > > Samples javadoc -- > > > > > > Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the > felix > > > librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples > > javadoc > > > > > > > > > ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... > > > > > > SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. > > > If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably need to > > > edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the location > > > where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution > > > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: > > > commonj/sdo/DataObject > > > at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) > > > at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) > > > at > > > org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( > > > SampleInfrastructure.java:58) > > > at > org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure > > > .<clinit>(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) > > > > > > I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to reflect > the > > > updated jar versions > > > > > > C:\Release\sdo- > > > > > > 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples > > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - there is an extra "target" directory in the samples directory > of > > > the binary distribution > > > > > > > > > Release notes ... > > > ISSUE -- following is not so .... > > > "Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first such > > > release > > > with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. > > > > > > > > > In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not included > in > > > the > > > 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below for > > detail) > > > there are a number of new features relating to XML serialization, and > > new > > > support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes." > > > > > > and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0 release > below > > > that. I think we need > > > to compose some words specific to the nature of this release. > > > > > > ISSUE -- The JIRA list looks OK but I think it contains CTS JIRAs juch > > as > > > 829, we need to check it against > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=5&fixfor=12312995&resolution=1&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=updated&sorter/order=DESC > > > > > > Source ZIP File on Windows > > > ========================== > > > > > > md5 is fine > > > pgp .asc file to be verified > > > > > > ISSUE - The BUILDING file needs updating with respect to building with > > > Java 1.4.2 -- instead of asking the builder to manually remove files > > that > > > contain java 5 features we can now tell them to do mvn > -Pjava_1_4_maven > > or > > > whatever the profile name is > > > > > > LICENSE file looks good > > > ditto README > > > > > > ISSUE - the RELEASE_NOTES have the same issues as the binary > file, but > > I > > > think that's becasue they come from the same file in the distribution > > > project > > > > > > Building with Java 5 successfully puts maven artifacts into my repo > > > Building the distribution project results in archives that look the > same > > > as those you have posted (including the spurious target directory in > the > > > samples project of the binary distribution) > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - the java5tools project contains an unneccessary license.txtfile > > > > > > Maven artifacts > > > ================ > > > > > > LICENSE.txt files look OK > > > The META-INF/README.txt file in the sdo-impl and api jars are for > > > 1.0-incubating, date July 2007 -- I guess this is the same for all > > > > > > Testing a build against the staging repo: Altering the repository url > > for > > > apache.incubator in the top level pom of the source distro to > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven< > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > and building the sample project in that distro, with no sdo artifacts > > in > > > my local repo, successfully causes download of the SDO artifacts from > > your > > > staging repo, and the sample project build is successful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] > > > > Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] > > > > I cut a branch for this release at [3] > > > > > > > > The rat report is at - [4], [5] > > > > > > > > Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed back > on > > > > the install, build and samples. Please give an early feedback, so as > > to > > > > help in quickly revising the required changes and forming RC2. > > > > > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1< > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > > [2] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven< > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-1.1-incubating/ > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > < > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > < > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > < > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > < > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: please do reply (not reply all), so as to let the discussion > > > > happen in > > > > user ML. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Amita > > > > > > > > > > > > >
