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 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:03:11 GMT

Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods <> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods <> wrote:
>>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> route.
>>>>>>>>  Currently, our thoughts were to
>>>>>>>> bring it in as a subproject to an existing TLP (like Commons,
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> Geronimo) and not create a new Incubator Podling, since we
>>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>> from multiple projects interested in working on a JSR-303
>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>> (Geronimo, OpenJPA, MyFaces, OpenEJB, Commons, ...).  The
>>>>>>>> complication,
>>>>>>>> is that we would need to  offer committership to Roman from
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> Commons Sandbox, then all the existing ASF committers can have
>>>>>>> straight away - but I think its unlikely that the Commons PMC
>>>>>>> grant Roman access from day one (I can ask though). If that is
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> initial Agimatec code snapshot, IP clearance form and SGA to the
>>>>>> Incubator
>>>>>> for me.
>>>>> I can do that.
>>>>>> Can you start a discussion on private@commons about accepting the
>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>> and which method the community would like to follow?
>>>>> Already done.
>>>> Any updates on this?
>>> Apologies for the delay in responding. I asked for opinions from the
>>> PMC specifically on whether we could give access to the Sandbox to
>>> someone who wasn't an ASF committer and didn't have a prior history of
>>> contribution. Most of the PMC has been silent on this and the response
>>> I did get was mixed (i.e. both for and against) so even if it was
>>> possible to get a majority vote, I am not comfortable pushing for this
>>> approach since I believe it would be divisive for Commons.
>>> This means that if we go the Commons Sandbox route, then Roman would
>>> be left needing to submit patches to his own work until he'd earn't
>>> enough Karma to be voted in. Personally I don't think that would be a
>>> great situation unless he is completely happy doing that. So probably
>>> the best approach would be to go the Incubator podling route.
>>> WDYT?
>> Yep, the Podling route seems the best solution (see my other reply to
>> Mohammad for thoughts of why....)
>> Do you want me to start putting together a Proposal?  Figure we can use the
>> Validator sandbox to collaborate on it till it's ready for submission.
> Lets start a proposal on the incubator wiki:
> Theres a guide here:
> Also I suggest we start a vote here (dev@commons) for Commons to be
> the sponsoring PMC - but it might be better if we had the draft
> proposal ready before calling a vote. One thought I had was (if
> Commons votes to be the sponsoring PMC) that we could perhaps use the
> commons mailing lists (commits@commons & dev@commons) and JIRA - that
> way it would make it easier for the Commons community to follow
> along/observe. Just because Commons sponsors though it doesn't mean
> that it would automatically come here when ready to graduate (AIUI) -
> which might be one reason to not use Commons resources (mailing list
> and JIRA).

Yep, definitely need a vote, as the community needs to be behind this.
As far as mailing list and JIRA, each Podling gets its own mailing list 
@incubator and a JIRA project as part of the infra setup.  Seems that we 
would only use the existing Commons lists and JIRA if we went the 
sub-project route and used the Incubator just for the IP clearance....


> Niall
>> -Donald
>>> Niall
>>>> -Donald
>>>>> Niall
>>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>> separate modules composing of:
>>>>>>>>>  - The Bean Validation (JSR303) API - no dependencies
>>>>>>>>>  - Standalone Validation Routines (based on existing
>>>>>>>>> routines package) - no dependencies including Bean Validation
>>>>>>>>>  - Validation Framework - JSR303 implementation (depends
on two
>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>> I have created an alternative branch in the Validator
>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>> based on the above approach:
>>>>>>>>> I have created a "clean room" implementation of the Bean
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> "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:

View raw message