On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specification V1.0:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200703.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The source archives and RAT reports can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jboynes/sca-api-r1.0-1.0-incubating
and the binary in the Maven repo at:
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/org/osoa/
sca-api-r1.0/1.0-incubating
ok except for the signature issue
major issues
==========
gpg --verify sca-api-r1.0-1.0-incubating.jar.asc sca-api-r1.0-1.0-incubating.jar
gpg: Signature made Sun Mar 4 01:53:25 2007 GMT using DSA key ID 11007026
gpg: BAD signature from "Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
MD5 sums look right
notes and comments
=================
(subjective, not binding)
it's good to include the project name in the jar
the latest advice on best practice from cliff is that a separate
DISCLAIMER.txt is preferred to including the incubator disclaimer in
the NOTICE.txt. the reason is that the NOTICE.txt has legal
implications so it's best to restrict the contents. incubator policy
asks that the DISCLAIMER is distributed but this isn't something we
require by downstream. IMHO this isn't important enough to consider
re-rolling.
i assume that this is an apache implementation of an osoa standard
(please correct me if this is wrong). the MANIFEST is short on details
and is missing standard/required/recommended attributes. it's good to
have the relationship between implementator and specifier clearly
listed in the MANIFEST.
org/osoa/sca-api-r1.0/1.0-incubating/ it's unusual to see 1.0 in there
twice but then again, this may well be intentional (but though it best
to point it out)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
