beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eddie O'Neil" <ekon...@bea.com>
Subject Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:52:27 GMT

   And, I've got a set of XML processing utilities for DOM and for XSD 
validation that I'll commit to NetUI under:

   org.apache.beehive.netui.util.xml

Unfortunately, these probably won't be useful for things in the Page 
Flow compiler or in the EJB Control.  If you use utility things there, 
we might try to protect them as much as possible so we keep the API 
surface area to a minimum and don't become a provider of XML utils.

   :)

EKO



Rich Feit wrote:
> Thanks Carlin, that would be really helpful. Basically, the
> ProcessedAnnotations XMLBean would need to get replaced with some other
> bean.  It's a simple schema (annotated-element(s) -> [element-name,
> processed-annotation(s) -> [annotation-name, annotation-attr(s) ->
> [attr-name, attr-value]]]). The only thing to note is that it's
> recursive: an annotation-attr can contain a processed-annotation as its
> value.  Let me know if you have any questions about it.
> 
> Rich
> 
> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> 
>> I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed 
>> Annotations you mentioned Rich.
>>
>> On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
>>> (generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> Carlin Rogers wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
>>>> committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
>>>> XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional 
>>>>      
>>>>
>>> benefits
>>>    
>>>
>>>> both you and Rich have outlined.
>>>>
>>>> The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
>>>> straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
>>>> discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in

>>>>      
>>>>
>>> the
>>>    
>>>
>>>> DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>>>>
>>>> Carlin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
View raw message