Hmm, this seems like an example of where "legal red tape" may be getting in the way of the "spirit of reuse". Here's the general problem:
1) We need to override a base class' behavior to do something "slightly different". 2) Looking at the base class, we notice that it requires a tiny change in the middle of a medium to large sized method. We request a slight refactoring of the base (EMF) code, which they agree to fix in their next version. 3) We can't move to the next version yet, so we add a copy of the method (with the change) in our subclass and then proceed as if it was already in the base class. Note that we really don't want to do this in the first place because if we later forget to remove the override and EMF fixes some other bug in the same method, we won't ever pick up the fix. Unfortunately, however, we have no choice in the short term other than to rewrite the whole method, but since it's intricately tied to the rest of the base class implementation it really couldn't be much different. We could rewrite the entire class, but that completely defeats the purpose of reuse. Does anybody know how this kind of "necessary copying" is addressed? I also wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed method" vs "a copied method with a change" in a subclass? For example, what if one of the copied methods was only 3 lines and we changed one of them? Is that still a copy? Thanks, Frank. Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/19/2007 10:27:52 AM: > The original code here is EPL (I assume), which Apache projects can > include in binary form but not in source form. See here for details: > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > We need to remove the original code from the repo. After that, there > are two options: > * Have the IP owner (I presume this is IBM code) relicense it under > AL and contribute > via the IP Clearance process > * Do an alternative implementation, best done by someone who has not > seen the Eclipse code > > -- > Jeremy > > On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
