On Tuesday 20 February 2007 11:47, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > I don't like the "poms" for most of the specs artifacts (the <name> > > fields > > should say "Apache Geronimo-Specs XXXXX" or similar), but that's > > minor. > > Would be nice if they had SAAJ 1.3 and JWS annotations, but it's a > > start. :-) > > Can you provide a concrete example? Thanks! >
The reasoning comes from the new maven-remote-resources-plugin that we (CXF, UIMA, all the Maven stuff, hopefully more soon) (maybe even yoko) will be using to generate the NOTICE files automatically from the dependencies in the poms. The OLD (1.0.1 geronimo stuff), the poms had very little information in them. Thus, the NOTICE resulted in lines that just look like: This product includes/uses software, JMS With the new (1.1) poms and the genesis heiarchy, the result is much better: This product includes/uses software, JMS 1.1 (http://geronimo.apache.org/specs/geronimo-jms_1.1_spec), developed by Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org) License: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt) That's certainly better than the Sun jars that end up with: This product includes/uses software, Unnamed - javax.annotation:jsr250-api:jar:1.0 However, my concern is more about the Apache branding rules. The branding always has to be "Apache XXXXX". In this case, it looks like the project name is just "JMS 1.1", which is technically wrong. We do add the rest of the Apache stuff in the two lines after it, but it's still a concern. I'm not a lawyer, but I usually try to do too much to apease them rather than figure out if I've done enough. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
