commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: [validator] Direction of validator implementation based on JSR 303
Date Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:27 GMT

Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods <> wrote:
>> Hi Nail.  I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
>> repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
>> As far as the API, we already have a clean room copy of the 1.0 GA API
>> created over in the Apache Geronimo Specs subproject [1], with the other
>> Java EE spec APIs we ship, so I'd be -1 on creating another copy, see
>> VALIDATOR-274 for history.
>> As far as the provider implementation, I've been working with the
>> Agimatec-Validation project [2] currently hosted on Google Code which is ASL
>> 2.0 licensed to bring it over to Apache.
> Cool :)
>>  I have a completed SGA from the
>> company (Agimatec Gmbh) that developed the code, but was working with some
>> other ASF members on how we should bring the code into the ASF, so guess
>> it's time to start discussing that here.
> Has the SGA been recorded at the ASF?

No, as I was waiting to see if we were going the Podling or sub-project 

>>  Currently, our thoughts were to
>> bring it in as a subproject to an existing TLP (like Commons, OpenJPA or
>> Geronimo) and not create a new Incubator Podling, since we have committers
>> from multiple projects interested in working on a JSR-303 implementation
>> (Geronimo, OpenJPA, MyFaces, OpenEJB, Commons, ...).  The only complication,
>> is that we would need to  offer committership to Roman from Agimatec as soon
>> as the Incubator IP clearance is finished, as he would need to be the one to
>> remove the existing Agimatec copyright statements.  Thoughts?
> If we have an SGA from the Agimatec then I think anyone can remove
> their copyright statements from the source code. However its not nice
> IMO to take someones code and then expect them(Roman) to start
> submitting patches and not give them access. If we did this in the
> Commons Sandbox, then all the existing ASF committers can have access
> straight away - but I think its unlikely that the Commons PMC will
> grant Roman access from day one (I can ask though). If that is the
> case then it would be better to do it as an incubator podling. We have
> done that recently when commons accepted Sanselan from the incubator
> and graduating should be relatively easy since Commons's requirements
> for a component to be part of "proper" are usually 1) is it ready to
> release and 2) does it have 3+ committers.

Either a Podling or sub-project works for me.  The only complication 
with a sub-project, is I'd need a Commons PMC member to work with me to 
submit the initial Agimatec code snapshot, IP clearance form and SGA to 
the Incubator for me.

Can you start a discussion on private@commons about accepting the 
codebase and which method the community would like to follow?


> Niall
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> -Donald
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> The current trunk in the validator2 sandbox is a copy of the Validator
>>> 1.4 code from "commons proper" - but I think we should dump all the
>>> existing validator framework code and just retain the "routines"
>>> package. Trying to maintain any sort of compatibility with the
>>> existing validator framework would be alot more work and code and
>>> create a real mess IMO and I think it would be better to not to even
>>> try. The "routines" package was refactored realtively recently(!) and
>>> can stand on its own.
>>> So I would like to propose the following direction for a Validator2
>>> based on the Bean Validation Framework(JSR 303) - a project with three
>>> separate modules composing of:
>>>  - The Bean Validation (JSR303) API - no dependencies
>>>  - Standalone Validation Routines (based on existing validator
>>> routines package) - no dependencies including Bean Validation API
>>>  - Validation Framework - JSR303 implementation (depends on two modules
>>> above)
>>> I have created an alternative branch in the Validator sandbox project
>>> based on the above approach:
>>> I have created a "clean room" implementation of the Bean Validation
>>> API[1] which (hopefully) is complete except for JavaDocs. The only
>>> real functionality is in javax.validation.Validation - the rest are
>>> annotations, interfaces and exceptions. I have also copied the
>>> "routines" package into a standalone module[2]. So the next thing is
>>> to start the actual framework implementation module.
>>> How does this sound as an approach?
>>> Niall
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>>> [3]
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message