ant elder wrote:
On 5/4/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicholas Williams wrote:
> My understanding is that Tuscany does not currently validate SCDL
against the schemas. Assuming that this is correct, when do you think
such
functionality will be introduced?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Nick Williams
>
>
Good idea. We should validate
.composite/.componentType/.constrainingType files when we initially load
them and report any XML schema validation problems then, and this will
greatly improve our error reporting story.
These files are loaded by
Composite/ComponentType/ConstrainingTypeDocumentProcessor (in module
tuscany-assembly-xml). It should be easy to add the validation there.
To do this we'll need the schemas in our distribution. The SCA 1.0
schemas and license.txt are there: http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/.
However, before we include them I think we need to review their license.
Since it's not an Apache License, we need to get an approval covering
this 3rd party license. We'll probably have to adjust our NOTICE file to
list that 3rd party license as well.
Is this something we'd like to do as part of the upcoming release? This
is just a few lines of code, the benefit is much better error reporting,
and it's probably the right time to look at this license issue now as we
are going to have to review all our other NOTICE and license files
anyway.
What do people think?
It does sound like it would be good to do validation.
We need to clarify the OSOA license anyway as the Tuscany SDO distribution
is already distributing things covered by it. The OSOA license was asked
about on the legal-discus list a couple of months ago [1] and no answers
were given other than being asked why OSOA couldn't just use a standard
license (which seems like a very good question to me).
Two issues are, the one already mentioned on legal-discuss about being a
"compliant implementation", and another is it says we can redistribute the
"INTERFACE DEFINITION FILES" but the SDO API also contains some
implementation classes so its not clear if we have a license to use those.
Given there wasn't any clear answer last time it was asked about on
legal-discuss its likely we can't get this clarified in time for the
upcoming release. But, I'm pretty sure its OSOAs intention that we should
have rights to use the files, and as we've already done a couple of SDO
releases which have cleared all the reviews how about we just go ahead and
use them for now as we're still incubating but just make sure its sorted
out
by the time we graduate?
...ant
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200702.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Folks,
What makes me smile about this legal point is that nowhere does OSOA
ever define what is meant by a "compliant implementation".
The lawyers drafted the terms of the license - the reason for not using
some "standard license" like Apache is that it was intended that the
files should not be modified - they are meant to represent the content
of the specification.
However, the current OSOA specs don't have conformance statements in any
recognised form. Neither is there a compliance test suite to validate
compliance to such conformance statements. So I would argue that using
the phrase "compliant implementation" is meaningless for the OSOA specs.
How could anyone argue whether a particular implementation is
compliant or not?
However, I'm no lawyer. No doubt law-folk will take a different view.
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
