My source (kevan miller) thinks you need the "includes" line in the NOTICE file. So I think it's time for a new vote...
thanks again! david jencks On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:49 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Kurt T Stam wrote: > >> On 6/17/11 9:26 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote: >>> >>> On 6/16/11 8:03 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Kurt Stam wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> You should be able to specify a jaxws21 classifier to get the jaxws21 >>>>> version? >>>> >>>> Hi Kurt, >>>> >>>> I might not have explained the problem very well. However, I compared the >>>> jars I got from (no profile) and -Pjaxws21 and the only difference I can >>>> see is in some maven files, the class files all have the same size so I'd >>>> guess they are identical. Can you explain what the difference is? >>>> Usually a possibly different dependency is not a good enough reason to add >>>> a classifier. I'd suggest compiling with the jaxws 2.1 spec and marking >>>> it as provided so the user can supply whatever spec they want. Also, does >>>> this stuff really require jaxb 2.2? I'd guess that since it works with >>>> jaxws 2.1 it doesn't. >>>> >>>> Anyway.... back the the problem I think is happening (but haven't >>>> verified). >>>> >>>> When you run mvn deploy it updates the maven-metadata.xml to indicate the >>>> timestamp and build number of the uploaded snapshot artifacts. When maven >>>> tries to download a "SNAPSHOT" it looks at this metadata to find the most >>>> recent upload. So, after I just pushed a plain uddi-ws-3.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>> the metadata looks like this: >>>> >>>> <metadata modelVersion="1.1.0"> >>>> <groupId>org.apache.juddi</groupId> >>>> <artifactId>uddi-ws</artifactId> >>>> <version>3.1.0-SNAPSHOT</version> >>>> <versioning> >>>> <snapshot> >>>> <timestamp>20110616.210535</timestamp> >>>> <buildNumber>16</buildNumber> >>>> </snapshot> >>>> <lastUpdated>20110616210535</lastUpdated> >>>> <snapshotVersions> >>>> <snapshotVersion> >>>> <extension>jar</extension> >>>> <value>3.1.0-20110616.210535-16</value> >>>> <updated>20110616210535</updated> >>>> </snapshotVersion> >>>> <snapshotVersion> >>>> <extension>pom</extension> >>>> <value>3.1.0-20110616.210535-16</value> >>>> <updated>20110616210535</updated> >>>> </snapshotVersion> >>>> </snapshotVersions> >>>> </versioning> >>>> </metadata> >>>> The previously existing uddi-ws-3.1.0-SNAPSHOT-jaxws21.jar still there but >>>> not mentioned in the metadata so I think it may be inaccessible. On the >>>> other hand somehow it got into the repo without a timestamp which I >>>> thought was impossible so I could be wrong. >>>> >>>> I'd still like to understand what the 2 ways of building the jar are for. >>>> >>>> thanks! >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> If you deploy the uddi-ws.jar compiled against jaxws-2.2 to an environment >>> where the jaxws-2.1 interfaces are used, then you will get linkage errors >>> (missing methods). I'm talking older appservers here. So in short, our code >>> maybe the same in both versions of the jar but the byte code produced is >>> slightly different. >>> >>> At release time I ran >>> >>> mvn clean deploy -Papache-release -Pjaxws21 >>> >>> to add the jaxws21 version of the jar. But as you found out, this seems to >>> mess with the meta data. >>> >>> I'm open for suggestions on how to support this properly. Aren't >>> classifiers used to support different jdk versions? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> --Kurt >> >> David, >> >> OK after re-testing it turns out we don't need the different compile. Your >> assessment that the jars end up the same >> was true. Not entirely sure how we got to our conclusion we needed it >> before, but things are working now. > > I suspect that somehow due to maven dependencies both the 2.1 and 2.2 jaxws > specs got in the classpath or classloader graph and somehow both possible > orders got used. > >> >> Do you see any more issues before I start another vote? > > rat results look good to me. > > I updated the NOTICE file to fix the copyright year and not mention junit. > AFAICT juddi does not include any junit code and the NOTICE file is only > supposed to include info about stuff that is actually included, not stuff > that is used. > > I'm asking someone whether the > > This product includes software developed at > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > > line in the NOTICE file is needed..... even if it isn't it's not a major > disaster :-). I'll let you know if I find out before you start the vote :-) > > thanks for taking the time to straighten out all these little niggly details > :-) > > david jencks > >> >> Cheers, >> >> --Kurt >> >> >
