The build now works for me. I don't know what the .txt files are used for or how but I think it would be better to get a license header into them if its plausible.
What is the .rpc file? Is it generated? thanks! david jencks On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Tom Cunningham wrote: > Fixed the asm issue, and I've added headers to most of the files below. > The ones I did not add anything were : > > - the .txt files > - the .rpc file > - the .ser file, which is a serialized class file whose format that I guess > rat doesn't know about > > I think we're okay on omitting it from those files. > > The only one I'm unsure of is the .odp file - it is three powerpoint slides - > we could either add a license or just remove the file, I'll let Kurt make the > call. > > > On 06/15/2011 06:45 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> done in rev 1136228. >> Running maven rat:check on a fresh checkout I still see: >> >> !????? juddi-console/juddi-portal/package.properties >> !????? juddi-console/juddi-portal/pluto/unitpngfix.js >> !????? >> juddi-console/uddi-portlets/.gwt-tmp/shell/org.apache.juddi.portlets.Application.JUnit/422AEE328955081603763BA1867826A0.gwt.rpc >> !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/src/main/webapp/index.html >> !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/conf/web.xml >> !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/web.xml >> !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/work/gwt/localhost/_/tldCache.ser >> !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/uddi-portlets.launch >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/companies.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/countries.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/emails.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/firstnames.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/lastnames.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/nouns.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/searchphrases.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/sentences.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/streets.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/towns.txt >> !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/words.txt >> !????? qa/QATestingProcess.odp >> !????? RELEASE_NOTES.html >> >> I'm also getting a new build error today that I didn't get yesterday that >> looks like an asm version mismatch: >> >> <testcase time="0.028" >> classname="org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistrationTest" >> name="registerToJNDI_AnonymousPort"> >> <error >> message="org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor.visit(ILjava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;)V" >> type="java.lang.NoSuchMethodError">java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: >> org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor.visit(ILjava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;)V >> at net.sf.cglib.core.ClassEmitter.begin_class(ClassEmitter.java:63) >> at >> net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory$Generator.generateClass(KeyFactory.java:173) >> at >> net.sf.cglib.core.DefaultGeneratorStrategy.generate(DefaultGeneratorStrategy.java:25) >> at >> net.sf.cglib.core.AbstractClassGenerator.create(AbstractClassGenerator.java:215) >> at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory$Generator.create(KeyFactory.java:145) >> at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory.create(KeyFactory.java:117) >> at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory.create(KeyFactory.java:108) >> at net.sf.cglib.proxy.Enhancer.<clinit>(Enhancer.java:64) >> at >> org.mockejb.interceptor.InterceptableProxy.create(InterceptableProxy.java:38) >> at >> org.mockejb.jndi.MockContextFactory.getInitialContext(MockContextFactory.java:47) >> at >> javax.naming.spi.NamingManager.getInitialContext(NamingManager.java:667) >> at >> javax.naming.InitialContext.getDefaultInitCtx(InitialContext.java:288) >> at javax.naming.InitialContext.init(InitialContext.java:223) >> at javax.naming.InitialContext.<init>(InitialContext.java:175) >> at >> org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistration.<init>(JNDIRegistration.java:60) >> at >> org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistration.getInstance(JNDIRegistration.java:53) >> ... >> >> I have no idea what might have changed to cause this. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >> >> >>> We're using JUDDI-502 for this. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> --Kurt >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/15/11 12:57 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>> I think that unless you set up some exclusions you have to be careful to >>>> run >>>> >>>> mvn clean >>>> mvn rat:check >>>> >>>> or you get a lot of false arguments about stuff generated in the build.... >>>> that might be why you get a larger number of problems than I did. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/14/11 7:30 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Aside from the build problems that someone might be able to convince me >>>>>> to overlook, I ran >>>>>> >>>>>> mvn rat:check >>>>>> >>>>>> on the unpacked source zip which showed a lot of files (119) that did >>>>>> not have appropriate licensing info. It's possible that some of these >>>>>> can't for some kind of format reason but the first few I checked >>>>>> certainly could. If some of these can't have license headers I think >>>>>> there's a way to include a rat exclusion list where we could document >>>>>> them. >>>>> I'm getting: Too many unapproved licenses: 893 >>>>> 1. I think it does not like the copyright notices in the header. >>>>> * Copyright 2001-2011 The Apache Software Foundation, >>>>> >>>>> 2. I manually checked some and some files sure have the license >>>>> missing completely, so that sure needs fixing. >>>>>> I noticed a comment in juddi-portal/README that maven 2.0.6 should be >>>>>> used. If this is true for the entire project I think some updating is >>>>>> needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have some workarounds for the build issues I ran into that involve: >>>>>> >>>>>> - using derby 10.6.2.1 >>>>>> - using geronimo jta spec instead of (sun?) javaee specs >>>>>> - using geronimo javamail and changing the NotifierTest.testSMTPNotifier >>>>>> to expect to pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also prefer to see a lot of pom cleanup using dependency management >>>>>> to eliminate repetition of version info. >>>>>> >>>>>> If everyone's happy with this idea I'm happy to update the poms in this >>>>>> way. >>>>> Fine by me. >>>>>> It might be better for someone more familiar with all the files to look >>>>>> at the license issue. >>>>> ok I will go through a round of clean up on this. >>>>>> BTW I prefer to see vote emails that give the explicit location of the >>>>>> source bundle and make clear that it is what is being voted on, not the >>>>>> tag or binaries. >>>>> Fair enough >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> david jencks >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At some point the planned 'quick 3.0.5 release', turned into a much >>>>>>> more substantial release. One of >>>>>>> the major features was to support JAX-WS 2.2, and we beefed up the >>>>>>> client code substantially. Since we >>>>>>> added so much new code this release is now labeled 3.1.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/tags/juddi-3.1.0/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> nexus: >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejuddi-068/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please not that the uddi-ws-3.1.0 comes in 2 flavors: by default it is >>>>>>> compiled against the JAX-WS 2.2 spec, but we also >>>>>>> release a uddi-ws-3.1.0-jaxws21.jar with a 'jaxws21' classifier to >>>>>>> support JAX-WS 2.1 deployment environments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also I have updated the website to reflect the 3.1.0 release: >>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/site/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please give it a spin and cast your vote in the next 72 hours! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My vote: +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Kurt >
