portals-pluto-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Where should portlet-api_3.0 & portlet-tck_3.0 live?
Date Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:12:35 GMT
That all sounds fine.  My real point was that if the API and TCK code are to be considered
part of the Apache Portals project then they should follow the ASF guidelines - i.e use the
ASF subversion repository or however the ASF makes use of Github. In addition releases should
be done following the ASF release policy.  

Ralph

On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Martin Scott Nicklous <Scott.Nicklous@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Ralph,
> 
> From my point of view, the overall project is to create a new version of
> the portlet spec along with a corresponding new RI & TCK. So the project
> has two parts - the "spec" part and the "RI / TCK" part.
> 
> The project page for the JSR 362 specification effort is hosted in the
> "portletspec3" project on java.net. So far, there is no offical "JSR 362
> Portlet Specification 3.0" document. Instead, there are JSR 362
> "non-normative working documents" whose content is subject to change. Any
> official JSR 362 specification document will be available from the JCP site
> under the IBM specification license. The JSR 362 working documents are
> available from the portletspec3 download area. So far, here is no single
> document containing all of the proposed changes / features that I mentioned
> in my other post - That's what I need to work on next.
> 
> The effort is based on version 2.0 of the portlet spec. The Apache Pluto
> project hosts the v2.0 RI and also the API artifacts and documentation (I
> don't know where else you could find the source) under the Apache 2.0
> license.  The JSR 286 specification is available from the JCP org site
> under the IBM spec license. Unfortunately, the v2.0 TCK was created under a
> Sun license that contains clauses  such that it cannot be hosted on Apache.
> 
> The accepted JSR 362 proposal explicitly specifies creation of an RI & TCK
> under the Apache 2.0 license. You can see that here, section 2.17:
> https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=362
> 
> The problem is that we cannot use the 2.0 TCK as a basis due to license
> considerations. However, we can create our own new 3.0 TCK under an Apache
> license. The new TCK can also include tests that exercise the 2.0
> functionality as long as the new tests do not use code from the 2.0 TCK.
> Since the new spec aims to achieve backward compatibility with the old
> spec, I think we need to create tests that exercise the complete
> functionality rather than only the new 3.0 functionality.
> 
> Since Apache hosts the Pluto RI, I don't think there is a problem with
> putting the Apache-licensed 3.0 TCK into the Pluto Apache project as well.
> Note that there is precedence for this:
> 
> 1) The JSR 329 JSF Portlet Bridge RI & TCK are both hosted on Apache under
> the MyFaces Portlet Bridge project:
> https://myfaces.apache.org/portlet-bridge/
> 
> 2) More recently the JSR 352 group created an RI & TCK under the Apache
> license, although they are both hosted on java.net:
> https://java.net/projects/jbatch/sources/jsr-352-git-repository/show
> 
> So the way I understand it is that the official spec is owned & licensed by
> the sponsoring company and is distributed through the JCP site. The
> sponsoring company is responsible for development of the RI & TCK, but has
> freedom in the licensing, and freedom  in exactly how the implementation is
> performed. I don't believe there is any problem with implementing the RI &
> TCK through an open-source effort. For Portlet Spec 3, IBM decided to
> license the RI & TCK artifacts under the Apache 2.0 license, and my idea is
> to host them on the Apache Pluto project and develop them together with the
> Pluto community if it would be agreeable to you. The actual API & API
> documentation is part of the RI (imho), so that would belong on Pluto as
> well.
> 
> But I'll double-check with the IBM project / legal  folks and get back to
> you if I'm wrong.
> 
> regards,
> Scott
> 
> Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote on 27.06.2014 18:08:52:
> 
>> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org,
>> Date: 27.06.2014 18:09
>> Subject: Re: Where should portlet-api_3.0 & portlet-tck_3.0 live?
>> 
>> All ASF projects are supposed to host their source on ASF
>> infrastructure. That said, there is an approved way for projects to
>> use Github if they choose - although I have never done it so I’m not
>> sure what is involved.
>> 
>> However, what you are proposing is a bit unusual because, as far as
>> I understand it, the portlet TCK and API are really owned by the JSR
>> committee and not the Portals project.
>> 
>> My personal opinion would be to bring them into svn (or the ASF Git
>> mechanism) as soon as practical.
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, where does the actual portlet spec document reside?
>> 
>> Ralph


Mime
View raw message