www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: stubbed out implementations of jcp-managed interfaces
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:23:50 GMT
CDC?

On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> I agree. I don't see any issues with creating a stub jar file that  
> doesn't actually do anything useful.
>
> I'd first see if the interfaces that Derby needs are already  
> licensed under a binary compatible license such as CDDL. I know  
> that many interfaces defined in JSRs have been recently (within the  
> past 4 months) dual licensed under CDDL and GPL, so I'd first  
> contact the spec lead. It might be that the official jars are  
> already suitable.
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 1:50 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I think you should just create interface and stub class jars.   
>> You're not claiming its an impl or compatible.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>> The following issue has come up on the Derby developer list and I  
>>> would like your advice about how to proceed:
>>>
>>> In order to build a releasable distribution of Derby, a developer  
>>> needs to compile Derby's small device support. Right now, this  
>>> involves finding an implementation of the CDC foundation classes  
>>> and the JSR 169 database interface classes--both of which  
>>> implementations are licensed under JCP rules. As far as I know,  
>>> the only implementations of these interfaces are available from  
>>> companies which require that you accept their additional,  
>>> encumbering licenses. Rather than sending every release manager  
>>> out on this hunt, I'd like to be able to check in enough Apache- 
>>> compatible machinery that the Derby build would always  
>>> automatically compile the small device support.
>>>
>>> One possibility would be to create our own stubbed out  
>>> implementation of the CDC foundation and JSR 169 classes. A  
>>> warning, however, has been raised. We are worried that the JCP  
>>> rules may not allow us to create a stubbed out implementation  
>>> which is only useful for compilation purposes. Is that also the  
>>> opinion of the jcp-open@apache.org list?
>>>
>>> I would appreciate your advice on how I can get my hands on  
>>> unencumbered compile-time machinery so that I can simplify the  
>>> Derby build.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>


Mime
View raw message