beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlin Rogers <carlin.rog...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:09:53 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message