geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanj...@watson.ibm.com>
Subject Re: [jsr109] JAXR
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:31:15 GMT
+1 for doing an independent implementation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jeremy@coredevelopers.net>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: [jsr109] JAXR


> IANAL, but I believe the issue is with the Supplemental Binary Code
License,
> section B, para 1, item iv) and v)
>
> [you]
> (iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that
> protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this
> Agreement
>
> (v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against
any
> damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including
> attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action
by
> any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any
> and all Programs and/or Software
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Richard Monson-Haefel
> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:40 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: [jsr109] JAXR
> >
> >
> > JSR 109 requires support for JAXR. Specifically, it requires that J2EE
> > components (ejbs, servlets/jsps, endpoints, etc.) have access to a
working
> > JAXR provider.  The WS-I supports/condones/whatever the use of UDDI, so
we
> > need a JAXR provider that at least supports UDDI (version 2.0).
> >
> > One way to address this is to write our own JAXR provider, but I
> > would like
> > to avoid that if possible. Ideally I would like to use the JAXR
reference
> > implementation provided by Sun Microsystems. What is the licensing
issues
> > with regard to using Sun's J2EE RI code?  I've heard a couple
> > people suggest
> > using various parts of the RI in other "subprojects", but I'm not sure
if
> > that's allowed by the RI license.
> >
> > Full functionality with JAXR is (IMO) far more important than
performance.
> > Its kind of hard to imagine many situations in which a really
> > fast JAXR impl
> > is needed. If performance is not an issue, than it would be best
> > (again IMO)
> > to use the RI implementation of JAXR and contribute back to that
> > rather than
> > roll our own. Again, I'm not totally sure if that's feasible or
advisable
> > and would appreciate any feedback from Apache wonks or anyone.
> >
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >


Mime
View raw message