Thanks Carlin, that would be really helpful. Basically, the ProcessedAnnotations XMLBean would need to get replaced with some other bean. It's a simple schema (annotated-element(s) -> [element-name, processed-annotation(s) -> [annotation-name, annotation-attr(s) -> [attr-name, attr-value]]]). The only thing to note is that it's recursive: an annotation-attr can contain a processed-annotation as its value. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
Rich Carlin Rogers wrote: >I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed >Annotations you mentioned Rich. > >On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
