We may be talking about two different things here.
Regarding the two EMF classes: BasicExtendedMetaData and XSDEcoreBuilder,
here's what we did.
Both of these classes (in EMF) create metadata (Types and Properties)
scattered in various places in the classes. Unfortunately, for us, it does
it using those evil singletons: EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX(). We
asked the EMF team if they could switch this to the IOC pattern, so we
could inject our SDO specific metadata factories. They said they would,
but can't before EMF version 2.3 which is Java 5 dependent. Since we won't
(can't) move to EMF 2.3, our interim solution was to create subclasses in
Tuscany, BaseSDOExtendedMetaData and BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder, which
override the methods that create metadata. The subclasses contain copies
of the base method, only using a factory instance variable instead of the
singleton. For example:
class BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder extends XSDEcoreBuilder {
protected EcoreFactory ecoreFactory;
void someXSDEcoreBuilderMethod() {
bla ... bla ... bla ...
// replaced this line: someVariable =
EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX();
someVariable = ecoreFactory.createXXX();
bla ... bla ... bla ..
}
... etc.
}
So, the question is, what kind of license do we need in these two Tuscany
classes?
1. Apache.
2. Apache + Eclipse
3. Other?
Currently, I think we just have #1. If anyone can provide guidance on
this, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Frank.
Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/18/2007 12:33:25 PM:
> Those are the ones. You said before that you thought this might be
> generated but that you were sure Frank would confirm. He has not done
> so.
>
> What seems odd to me is that if this was generated then I would have
> expected consistent text to have been produced by the generator.
> Instead we have things like:
>
> + * $Id: BasicExtendedMetaData.java,v 1.26 2006/04/29 11:45:28 emerks
> Exp $
>
> and
>
> + * $Id: XSDEcoreBuilder.java,v 1.71 2006/08/15 16:04:41 emerks Exp $
>
> which correlate directly to headers found in files in the Eclipse
> repo. This makes the provenance of the code uncertain which is why we
> need clarification of what happened.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
> On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:34 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
>
> > I think you are freferring to commit r513560 .* *There was no code
> > copied
> > from eclipse. The EMF generator puts an eclipse header in to
> > generated code
> > by default. That code was simply the result of using that generator
> > against
> > our own schemas.
> >
> > Regards, Kelvin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 17/03/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to be a party-pooper, but what was the outcome with the code
> >> copied from Eclipse?
> >> --
> >> Jeremy
> >>
> >> On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have posted an SDO Java M3 release candidate here:
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC1/ <http://
> >> > people.apache.org/%7Erobbinspg/M3-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/
> >> ~robbinspg/M3-RC1/>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look at this and try it out, so that I can pick up
> >> > any errors
> >> > quickly and move towards a vote on a proper release in the short
> >> term.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Kelvin.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
