Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core (generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
Rich Carlin Rogers 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
