I like to share some pain I have in the past by embedding EMF. 1. Runtime problem - EMF has several OSGi bundles containing some initialization and resource files with the same names. Once we lump all the bundles together, we need to merge all content otherwise we will run into some runtime problems.
2. Support problem - After we refactor EMF, it's hard to get support from EMF team because we don't know the problem is from the code we merged or original EMF code. Once EMF team knew their code has been touched, they would no longer support us not mentioning legal complication by changing EMF code. That's why I asked whether there is any compelling benefit by refactoring EMF. Fuhwei Fuhwei Lwo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I may have missed the reasoning behind refactoring EMF's package name to org.apache.tuscany.sdo.emf.*. Can anyone tell me the benefit by doing that? Thanks. Fuhwei ant elder wrote: 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 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 wrote: > > > > On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky 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 > > > >
