On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
> The XML files in question seem to be for Glassfish rather than JBoss > (though there is also a properties file in the list which is for JBoss) ? > > qpid-0.20-rc2/java/jca/example/conf/glassfish-ejb-jar.xml > qpid-0.20-rc2/java/jca/example/conf/glassfish-resources.xml > qpid-0.20-rc2/java/jca/example/conf/glassfish-web.xml > qpid-0.20-rc2/java/jca/example/conf/jboss-ejb-client.properties > > If having a comment in an XML file causes something to barf it sounds like > a bug to me :) > > We could do something as simple as generating the XML files used by the > example binary instead of committing them directly into the tree? That way > the base file thats doing the generation would be licenced but the > generated output for the binary need not. > (Albeit ugly, a bog standard ant echo could do the trick and the actually > content would look bascally the same to read/edit.) > Yep, all makes sense. I will take a look today. Thanks for the input/observations. > Robbie > > On 11 December 2012 18:15, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, I do remember this now (getting old). In some of the files, including >> the license causes issues with the generation, most notably JBoss7. I will >> take a closer look but I do remember trying to get the license in there >> before and not having any success without resorting to an XSL >> transformation after the generation which seemed a bit much to me at the >> time. >> >> >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Ah, I didnt actually look at them :) >>> >>> I have updated all the files in the Java tree I think are required >> (except >>> the JCA related XML configs, I'll defer to Westin on whether those can be >>> licenced). The changes are committed to trunk as the following commit, to >>> be merged upon approval: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1420285 >>> >>> Robbie >>> >>> >>> On 11 December 2012 16:37, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/11/2012 03:51 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >>>> >>>>> I ran RAT over the RC2 'full source release' archive, and it seems to >> have >>>>> turned up several files that need licences added in the CPP and Java >>>>> trees. >>>>> >>>>> The output is available here: >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**robbie/qpid/0.20/0.20rc2_rat_**output.txt< >> http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.20/0.20rc2_rat_output.txt> >>>>> >>>>> Can someone take a look at the files in the CPP tree? >>>>> >>>> >>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/DeliveryAdapter.h >>>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/LegacyLVQ.cpp >>>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/LegacyLVQ.h >>>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/TxOpVisitor.h >>>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/TxPublish.cpp >>>>> qpid-0.20-rc2/cpp/src/qpid/**broker/TxPublish.h >>>>> >>>> >>>> These are all empty files. Looks like a deletion that didn't actually >>>> delete the files, just the content. I've removed them from trunk ( >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1420258&view=rev< >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1420258&view=rev>) >>>> and can do so for the release branch if desired/approved... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected].**org< >> [email protected]> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
