I agree option 3 looks like the way to go. I'll start taking a look at the system controls, I believe the only one affected is the EJB control. I should be able to have a patch ready for it in the next day or so.
- Chad On 9/14/05, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a > committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support > XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional > benefits > both you and Rich have outlined. > > The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is > straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the > discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in > the > DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3. > > Carlin > > > On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to > > support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as > > a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use > > XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files > > (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid > > forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users. > > > > Rich > > > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > > > >All-- > > > > > > If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you > > >know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs. > > >At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans > > >resolving this licensing problem. > > > > > > In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a > > >point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options: > > > > > >1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's > > >not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with > > >BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out. > > > But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this > > >will happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and > > >accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use > > >Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces > > >those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in > > >order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the > > >JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like > > >3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form > > >Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in > > >NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls > > >doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on > > >XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done > > >at run time. > > > > > >Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3) > > >above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the > > >beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also > > >seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't > > >enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's > > >possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter > > >isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans, > > >which implies its presence. > > > > > > So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without > > >XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive > > >users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution. > > >Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*. > > > > > > This also has a few benefits: > > > > > >1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or > > more?) > > >2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a > version > > to use > > >3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas > > >don't need to be generated on the command line :) > > > > > > Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a > > >vote...additional thoughts / comments? > > > > > >Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> And, of course, the link helps... > > >> > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> :) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> Just to keep everyone updated... > > >>> > > >>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the > > >>>JSR 173 API licensing issue. > > >>> > > >>> I'll send more info along as I see it... > > >>> > > >>>Eddie > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we > > come... > > >>>>Rich > > >>>> > > >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>Steve-- > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- > seems > > >>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so... > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Eddie > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Eddie, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>That is great news! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being > > created > > >>>>>>for v1? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Thanks > > >>>>>>Steve > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM > > >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers > > >>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>All-- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR > > 173 > > >>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to > > >>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible > and > > >>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks > about > > >>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that > > >>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need > to > > >>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd > > >>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>from June. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> The change I committed does a few things: > > >>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from > > >>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans > > >>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution > > >>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the > distribution > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license > > >>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans > > goes > > >>>>>>with this next. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Questions / comments? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Eddie > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about > the > > >>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3 > > >>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>All-- > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have > been > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>in > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>issue > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>was > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>onto > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>verbage > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>in it. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There's mail in [EMAIL PROTECTED] that checks to make sure that the > > >>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>side, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our > > SVN > > >>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 > package. > > >>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve > the > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>1.0 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Eddie > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
