beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daryl Olander <dolan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:17:38 GMT
+1 for #3...I think we can always revisit this decision post 1.0 if XMLBeans 
resolves their licensing issue and we have features that depend on the 
XMLBeans features that are hard to get from standard XML technologies....

On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
> support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
> a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
> XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
> (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
> forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
> 
> Rich
> 
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> 
> >All--
> >
> > If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
> >know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
> >At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
> >resolving this licensing problem.
> >
> > In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
> >point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
> >
> >1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
> >not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
> >BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> > But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
> >will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
> >2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
> >accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
> >Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
> >those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
> >order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
> >JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
> >3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
> >Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
> >NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
> >doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
> >XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
> >at run time.
> >
> >Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
> >above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
> >beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
> >seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
> >enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
> >possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
> >isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
> >which implies its presence.
> >
> > So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
> >XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
> >users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
> >Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
> >
> > This also has a few benefits:
> >
> >1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or 
> more?)
> >2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version 
> to use
> >3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
> >don't need to be generated on the command line :)
> >
> > Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
> >vote...additional thoughts / comments?
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And, of course, the link helps...
> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Just to keep everyone updated...
> >>>
> >>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> >>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> >>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> >>>
> >>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
> >>>
> >>>Eddie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we 
> come...
> >>>>Rich
> >>>>
> >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steve--
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> >>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <stocco@bea.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is great news!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being

> created
> >>>>>>for v1?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Thanks
> >>>>>>Steve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new
JSR 
> 173
> >>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers
to
> >>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible
and
> >>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks
about
> >>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> >>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need
to
> >>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though
I'd
> >>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the
2.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>from June.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
> >>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> >>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> >>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> >>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> >>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans

> goes
> >>>>>>with this next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Questions / comments?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng
about the
> >>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> >>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that
have been
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking
a license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>issue
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API
JAR. There
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>was
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that
switched
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>onto
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different
license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>verbage
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>in it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure
that the
> >>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of
from their
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>side,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license
to our 
> SVN
> >>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR
173 package.
> >>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and
resolve the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>1.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message