openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fernando Padilla <f...@alum.mit.edu>
Subject Re: internal-repository??
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:40:23 GMT
It sucks that it's more work, but definitely better in the long run.

I don't think this is something I can volunteer for, but I will give you 
lots of moral support for taking this on :) :)


David Jencks wrote:
> IIUC the discussion on legal-discuss is not going too well for inclusion 
> of this IBM jar in apache svn.
> 
> If the idea behind this jar is the work-in-new-tx "work manager" I'd 
> suggest one way to proceed is to have someone who has not ever seen the 
> IBM code such as perhaps myself write an interface that allows for this 
> and put it in an apache package.  If IBM then wants to use this feature 
> of openjpa they can write an adapter between the apache interface and 
> the websphere transaction manager.
> 
> This would also make it a lot easier for other containers such as 
> geronimo to support this technique.
> 
> Yes, I work for IBM but I've never seen any websphere code and haven't 
> looked at the classes in the disputed jar beyond their names via jar -tf.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:57 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Fernando Padilla wrote:
>>
>>> Cool.  It was just a little bit weird.  And I finally realized that 
>>> it was not distributed with the binary, but it is being distributed 
>>> with all sources...
>>>
>>> I just wish things were cleaner, and all dependencies were from an 
>>> authoritative source, etc etc.  I wonder if we can talk to IBM for 
>>> them to release atleast the api (or talk to apache/geronimo to carry 
>>> an opensource version of the api much like they carry their own 
>>> versions of all apis ).  Or if we split off the websphere support 
>>> into its own project (like non-free ubuntu), hosted elsewhere..  and 
>>> people download that if needed..
>>
>> My memory is really fuzzy, but isn't this api there to provide easy to 
>> use encapsulation of a "requires new" semantic, and wasn't there a 
>> plan to try to get this into ee6?  What happened to that?  This seemed 
>> like a great idea to me and getting it into a spec api seems like the 
>> best of all worlds to me.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Dick wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Obviously IANAL. I think that my comments in the pom.xml file are 
>>>> poorly
>>>> worded though and are not in line with the actual license.
>>>> What I was trying to convey is that we do not include this jar or 
>>>> any of
>>>> it's classes with the compiled binaries of OpenJPA. What I did not 
>>>> consider
>>>> is that the source code / svn repository may also be considered our
>>>> distribution of OpenJPA - in which case the jars are distributed.
>>>> The jars are in the repository so that we can compile against them.
>>>> WebSphere / IBM provides a proprietary interface which we can use to 
>>>> iteract
>>>> with the transaction service in a user friendly manner. Rather than
>>>> maintaining our own stub implementation (which I thought would irk 
>>>> IBM) we
>>>> obtained a license agreement with IBM to use the jar, but (AFAIK) 
>>>> they did
>>>> not want us to publish it (ie to a maven repository).
>>>> As far as I know it has not been raised on legal-discuss. I will 
>>>> raise it
>>>> there though.
>>>> -mike
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 AM, David Jencks 
>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fernando,
>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Fernando Padilla wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm trying to setup my environment to do openjpa development..
>>>>>>> Reviewing pom files I ran into this under openjpa-kernel.  It

>>>>>>> looks like
>>>>>>> it brings along a mini embedded repository.  For something that

>>>>>>> "cannot be
>>>>>>> re-distributed".  If it can't be "re-distributed", then we are

>>>>>>> not allowed
>>>>>>> to include it in svn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did you get this idea? The svn repository is not a 
>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think that argument is specious.  I think there's some consensus on
>>>>> legal-discuss that expected svn checkout roots should have hard coded
>>>>> LICENSE and NOTICE files applying to everything you get by checking 
>>>>> out that
>>>>> root, IIUC on the grounds that svn checkout is effectively a 
>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case I think the comment in the pom is wrong, since the 
>>>>> license in
>>>>> the jar says:
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------
>>>>> You may use or redistribute the files or modules contained in this jar
>>>>> subject to the following terms:
>>>>>
>>>>> The WebSphere Application Server files or modules contained in this 
>>>>> jar
>>>>> may be redistrubuted as provided by IBM to you, and only as part of 
>>>>> Your
>>>>> application distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not use IBM's name or trademarks in connection with the 
>>>>> marketing
>>>>> of Your applications without IBM's prior written consent.
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM PROVIDES THESE FILES OR MODULES ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND IBM 
>>>>> DISCLAIMS
>>>>> ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>>>>> WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 
>>>>> MERCHANTABILITY
>>>>> OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IBM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>>>>> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES 
>>>>> ARISING OUT
>>>>> OF THE USE OR OPERATION OF THE FILES OR MODULES .  IBM HAS NO 
>>>>> OBLIGATION
>>>>> TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR 
>>>>> MODIFICATIONS TO
>>>>> THE FILES OR MODULES .
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this might well mean that it's ok to distribute the jar 
>>>>> unmodified.
>>>>> I don't see that this means its OK to include in svn.... has this been
>>>>> raised on legal-discuss?  Since this is an area often subject to 
>>>>> confusion
>>>>> and strong opinions it might be clearest for the future if there is a
>>>>> legal-discuss jira issue that's mentioned in the pom.  I don't see 
>>>>> guidance
>>>>> on http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the deal with this dependency??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message