Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself, real life often comes in the way of good intentions..
I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what we need. OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason. But we have two small issues; A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to publish it as org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have to prepare this JAR ouside Apache? B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed -- https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11 On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian! > thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very appreciated :) > > Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very bad timing, we > were not able to coordinate to each other in order to promptly follow-up > the discussion and then some other things happened in the private lives (I > got a new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)... > > BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache OpenOffice didn't back > down and is maintaining Beanshell under Apache Extras[1], releasing also > new releases - and it is ASLv2.0 licensed :) > > I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with new Beanshell > releases without any blocking issue :) > > I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best! > -Simo > > PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but Taverna in Italian > stands for typical old-fashioned typical restaurant in Rome! :) > > [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/ > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes < > soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell >> incubator. >> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow >> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's >> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to >> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin) >> >> >> >> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge >> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install >> Taverna Extras" button. >> >> >> I went through again the archives at >> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal >> >> >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3ccajo+ubunm7ahmov_4tvt6j8nojmcmmpddh1xonfw5b00ty6...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted - >> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway? >> >> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing >> happened :( >> >> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart >> this back again? >> >> >> The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/ >> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license. >> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/ >> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form. >> >> >> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so >> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be >> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna - >> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/ >> >> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more >> active (but remains LGPL :-( ). >> >> >> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) - >> but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES". >> >> They even copied the source here under the svn branch: >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz >> >> >> >> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is >> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which >> could somewhat be OK under Apache: >> >> http://beanshell.org/license.html >> >> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b >> >> >> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move >> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!) >> >> >> >> >> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows >> <donal.k.fell...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> >> >> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the >> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to >> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are >> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the >> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing >> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x >> >> releases might want to have a say on this. >> > >> > >> > I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that >> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a >> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the >> > cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific >> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was >> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that >> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an >> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge >> then. >> > >> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be >> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release >> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and setting >> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because >> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most development >> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of >> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the >> > time to the next engine release was huge.) >> > >> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing >> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely disruptive >> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an >> > existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%; >> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells. >> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is >> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for >> > transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D) >> > >> > Donal. >> >> >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >> School of Computer Science >> The University of Manchester >> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >> > >
