beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chad Schoettger <chad.schoett...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:19:32 GMT
I agree option 3 looks like the way to go. I'll start taking a look at the 
system controls, I believe the only one affected is the EJB control. I 
should be able to have a patch ready for it in the next day or so.

- Chad

On 9/14/05, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> 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