I guess there's various ways it could be done, i was thinking of an sdo-complete jar containing all the sdo classes (org.apache.tuscany.sdo.**) and all the emf classes renamed from org.eclipse.emf.** to be org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.**.
...ant On 6/13/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ant, this all sounds good, +1 to the spec project move, and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please? Kelvin On 13/06/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ant, > > > > You said this: > > > > > While building that it could also rename the > > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version > > problems > > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code. > > > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly > > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse > and > > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this > is > > allowed? > > > Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they > are > "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in > the > EPL that prevents us doing this. > > ...ant >
