Hi all, is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's description in the doc block?
Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the > <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's > description in the doc block?
Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any volunteers?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> > is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the > > <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's > > description in the doc block?
> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any volunteers?
I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in my spare time.
I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are going to do this. Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can put here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how you guys handle these things).
Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
>> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
>>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's >>> description in the doc block? >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any volunteers?
> I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in my spare > time.
> I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are going to > do this. > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can put > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how you guys > handle these things).
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the > >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's > >>> description in the doc block? > >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any > volunteers?
> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in my > spare > > time.
> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are going > to > > do this. > > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can put > > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how you > guys > > handle these things).
1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in the request above), or only for methods? 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle this?
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
>> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
>> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
>> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the >> >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's >> >>> description in the doc block? >> >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any >> volunteers?
>> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in my >> spare >> > time.
>> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are going >> to >> > do this. >> > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can put >> > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how you >> guys >> > handle these things).
>> > Anyway, I am a volunteer :)
>> > Silvano
>> Great :-) >> Suggest you raise a Feature/Change Request at >> http://pecl.php.net/bugs/report.php?package=SCA_SDO. Then when you have >> a proposed patch we can get the relevant committers to review it.
> 1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in the > request above), or only for methods? > 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle > this?
Sorry for not replying sooner and not replying to your original note.
I always had in mind to generate documentation in the WSDL from the
methods descriptions, so what you have done is exactly the right idea.
Thanks also for the patch. I haven't taken a look at the moment. The
SCA_SDO project has a CLA to cover contributions and so far as I'm
aware you've not signed, or been asked to sign it. Is this something
you'd be willing and able to do? I can give you more information in
needed.
Regards, Graham.
On 30 May, 17:05, "Silvano Girardi Jr" <silvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since I got no comments, I made it only for methods and not optional.
> I've put the patch in the case.
> Silvano
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Silvano Girardi Jr <silvan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> wrote:
> >> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> >> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the
> >> >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's
> >> >>> description in the doc block?
> >> >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any
> >> volunteers?
> >> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in my
> >> spare
> >> > time.
> >> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are going
> >> to
> >> > do this.
> >> > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can put
> >> > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how you
> >> guys
> >> > handle these things).
> >> > Anyway, I am a volunteer :)
> >> > Silvano
> >> Great :-)
> >> Suggest you raise a Feature/Change Request at
> >>http://pecl.php.net/bugs/report.php?package=SCA_SDO. Then when you have
> >> a proposed patch we can get the relevant committers to review it.
> > 1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in the
> > request above), or only for methods?
> > 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle
> > this?
> Sorry for not replying sooner and not replying to your original note. > I always had in mind to generate documentation in the WSDL from the > methods descriptions, so what you have done is exactly the right idea.
> Thanks also for the patch. I haven't taken a look at the moment. The > SCA_SDO project has a CLA to cover contributions and so far as I'm > aware you've not signed, or been asked to sign it. Is this something > you'd be willing and able to do? I can give you more information in > needed.
> Regards, Graham.
> On 30 May, 17:05, "Silvano Girardi Jr" <silvan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Since I got no comments, I made it only for methods and not optional.
> > I've put the patch in the case.
> > Silvano
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Silvano Girardi Jr <silvan...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> > wrote:
> > >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote: > > >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net> > wrote:
> > >> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> > >> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the > > >> >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's > > >> >>> description in the doc block? > > >> >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any > > >> volunteers?
> > >> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in > my > > >> spare > > >> > time.
> > >> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are > going > > >> to > > >> > do this. > > >> > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can > put > > >> > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how > you > > >> guys > > >> > handle these things).
> > >> > Anyway, I am a volunteer :)
> > >> > Silvano
> > >> Great :-) > > >> Suggest you raise a Feature/Change Request at > > >>http://pecl.php.net/bugs/report.php?package=SCA_SDO. Then when you > have > > >> a proposed patch we can get the relevant committers to review it.
> > > 1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in > the > > > request above), or only for methods? > > > 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle > > > this?
> Hi Graham,
> I have that interest. Where do I start? :)
> Thanks
> Silvano
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Graham Charters <gchart...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Silvano,
> > Sorry for not replying sooner and not replying to your original note.
> > I always had in mind to generate documentation in the WSDL from the
> > methods descriptions, so what you have done is exactly the right idea.
> > Thanks also for the patch. I haven't taken a look at the moment. The
> > SCA_SDO project has a CLA to cover contributions and so far as I'm
> > aware you've not signed, or been asked to sign it. Is this something
> > you'd be willing and able to do? I can give you more information in
> > needed.
> > Regards, Graham.
> > On 30 May, 17:05, "Silvano Girardi Jr" <silvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Since I got no comments, I made it only for methods and not optional.
> > > I've put the patch in the case.
> > > Silvano
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Silvano Girardi Jr <silvan...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Caroline Maynard <c...@php.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> Silvano Girardi Jr wrote:
> > > >> >>> is there any special reason for the SCA to do not generate the
> > > >> >>> <documentation></documentation> in the WSDL based on the method's
> > > >> >>> description in the doc block?
> > > >> >> Probably nobody thought to do it. Seems a good idea to me. Any
> > > >> volunteers?
> > > >> > I was checking how it works and it seems something I can handle in
> > my
> > > >> spare
> > > >> > time.
> > > >> > I will need to be in touch with someone here to discuss how we are
> > going
> > > >> to
> > > >> > do this.
> > > >> > Might be best in private and once we define the ways to do it we can
> > put
> > > >> > here in the list for votes. (Just thoughts really... not sure how
> > you
> > > >> guys
> > > >> > handle these things).
> > > >> > Anyway, I am a volunteer :)
> > > >> > Silvano
> > > >> Great :-)
> > > >> Suggest you raise a Feature/Change Request at
> > > >>http://pecl.php.net/bugs/report.php?package=SCA_SDO. Then when you
> > have
> > > >> a proposed patch we can get the relevant committers to review it.
> > > > 1 - should it include the description of the service too (as I put in
> > the
> > > > request above), or only for methods?
> > > > 2 - should it always happen or be optional? If optional, how to handle
> > > > this?
