You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beehive.apache.org by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> on 2005/09/14 18:49:51 UTC
xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
All--
If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
resolving this licensing problem.
In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
at run time.
Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
which implies its presence.
So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
This also has a few benefits:
1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or more?)
2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version to use
3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
don't need to be generated on the command line :)
Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
vote...additional thoughts / comments?
Eddie
On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And, of course, the link helps...
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> :)
>
>
>
> On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just to keep everyone updated...
> >
> > This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> > mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> > JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> >
> > I'll send more info along as I see it...
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we come...
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> > >
> > > >Steve--
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> > > >like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> > > >
> > > >Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Eddie,
> > > >>
> > > >>That is great news!
> > > >>
> > > >>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being created
> > > >>for v1?
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanks
> > > >>Steve
> > > >>
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> > > >>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> > > >>To: Beehive Developers
> > > >>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> > > >>
> > > >>All--
> > > >>
> > > >> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR 173
> > > >>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> > > >>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
> > > >>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> > > >>
> > > >> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
> > > >>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> > > >>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need to
> > > >>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> > > >>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> > > >>from June.
> > > >>
> > > >> The change I committed does a few things:
> > > >>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> > > >>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> > > >>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> > > >>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> > > >>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans goes
> > > >>with this next.
> > > >>
> > > >> Questions / comments?
> > > >>
> > > >>Eddie
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
> > > >>>JSR 173 bundle:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> > > >>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>All--
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>in
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>issue
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>was
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>onto
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>verbage
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>in it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
> > > >>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>side,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our SVN
> > > >>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
> > > >>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>1.0
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Eddie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Daryl Olander <do...@gmail.com>.
+1 for #3...I think we can always revisit this decision post 1.0 if XMLBeans
resolves their licensing issue and we have features that depend on the
XMLBeans features that are hard to get from standard XML technologies....
On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
> support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
> a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
> XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
> (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
> forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>
> Rich
>
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> >All--
> >
> > If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
> >know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
> >At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
> >resolving this licensing problem.
> >
> > In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
> >point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
> >
> >1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
> >not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
> >BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> > But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
> >will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
> >2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
> >accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
> >Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
> >those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
> >order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
> >JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
> >3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
> >Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
> >NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
> >doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
> >XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
> >at run time.
> >
> >Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
> >above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
> >beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
> >seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
> >enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
> >possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
> >isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
> >which implies its presence.
> >
> > So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
> >XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
> >users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
> >Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
> >
> > This also has a few benefits:
> >
> >1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
> more?)
> >2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version
> to use
> >3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
> >don't need to be generated on the command line :)
> >
> > Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
> >vote...additional thoughts / comments?
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And, of course, the link helps...
> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Just to keep everyone updated...
> >>>
> >>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> >>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> >>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> >>>
> >>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
> >>>
> >>>Eddie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
> come...
> >>>>Rich
> >>>>
> >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steve--
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> >>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is great news!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
> created
> >>>>>>for v1?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Thanks
> >>>>>>Steve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
> 173
> >>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> >>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
> >>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
> >>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> >>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need to
> >>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> >>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>from June.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
> >>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> >>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> >>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> >>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> >>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
> goes
> >>>>>>with this next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Questions / comments?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
> >>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> >>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>issue
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>was
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>onto
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>verbage
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>in it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
> >>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>side,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
> SVN
> >>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
> >>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>1.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans,
jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Eddie O'Neil <ek...@bea.com>.
And, I've got a set of XML processing utilities for DOM and for XSD
validation that I'll commit to NetUI under:
org.apache.beehive.netui.util.xml
Unfortunately, these probably won't be useful for things in the Page
Flow compiler or in the EJB Control. If you use utility things there,
we might try to protect them as much as possible so we keep the API
surface area to a minimum and don't become a provider of XML utils.
:)
EKO
Rich Feit wrote:
> Thanks Carlin, that would be really helpful. Basically, the
> ProcessedAnnotations XMLBean would need to get replaced with some other
> bean. It's a simple schema (annotated-element(s) -> [element-name,
> processed-annotation(s) -> [annotation-name, annotation-attr(s) ->
> [attr-name, attr-value]]]). The only thing to note is that it's
> recursive: an annotation-attr can contain a processed-annotation as its
> value. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
>
> Rich
>
> Carlin Rogers wrote:
>
>> I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed
>> Annotations you mentioned Rich.
>>
>> On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
>>> (generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> Carlin Rogers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
>>>> committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
>>>> XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional
>>>>
>>>>
>>> benefits
>>>
>>>
>>>> both you and Rich have outlined.
>>>>
>>>> The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
>>>> straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
>>>> discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>>>>
>>>> Carlin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
>>>>> support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
>>>>> a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
>>>>> XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
>>>>> (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
>>>>> forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
>>>>>> know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
>>>>>> At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
>>>>>> resolving this licensing problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
>>>>>> point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
>>>>>> not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
>>>>>> BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
>>>>>> But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
>>>>>> will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
>>>>>> 2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
>>>>>> accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
>>>>>> Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
>>>>>> those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
>>>>>> order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
>>>>>> JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
>>>>>> 3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
>>>>>> Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
>>>>>> NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
>>>>>> doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
>>>>>> XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
>>>>>> at run time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
>>>>>> above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
>>>>>> beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
>>>>>> seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
>>>>>> enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
>>>>>> possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
>>>>>> isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
>>>>>> which implies its presence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
>>>>>> XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
>>>>>> users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
>>>>>> Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also has a few benefits:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> more?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to use
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
>>>>>> don't need to be generated on the command line :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
>>>>>> vote...additional thoughts / comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, of course, the link helps...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just to keep everyone updated...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
>>>>>>>> mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
>>>>>>>> JSR 173 API licensing issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> come...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Steve--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
>>>>>>>>>> like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is great news!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> created
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for v1?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Beehive Developers
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All--
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 173
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
>>>>>>>>>>> ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
>>>>>>>>>>> what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
>>>>>>>>>>> they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >from June.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
>>>>>>>>>>> - switches the download package for JSR 173 from
>>>>>>>>>>> http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
>>>>>>>>>>> - bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
>>>>>>>>>>> - adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> distribution
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
>>>>>>>>>>> issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> goes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with this next.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Questions / comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> JSR 173 bundle:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> onto
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> verbage
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> side,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> SVN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> package.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocking JIRA issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans,
jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Carlin, that would be really helpful. Basically, the
ProcessedAnnotations XMLBean would need to get replaced with some other
bean. It's a simple schema (annotated-element(s) -> [element-name,
processed-annotation(s) -> [annotation-name, annotation-attr(s) ->
[attr-name, attr-value]]]). The only thing to note is that it's
recursive: an annotation-attr can contain a processed-annotation as its
value. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
Rich
Carlin Rogers wrote:
>I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed
>Annotations you mentioned Rich.
>
>On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
>>(generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>Carlin Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
>>>committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
>>>XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional
>>>
>>>
>>benefits
>>
>>
>>>both you and Rich have outlined.
>>>
>>>The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
>>>straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
>>>discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>>>
>>>Carlin
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
>>>>support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
>>>>a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
>>>>XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
>>>>(which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
>>>>forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>>>>
>>>>Rich
>>>>
>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All--
>>>>>
>>>>>If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
>>>>>know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
>>>>>At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
>>>>>resolving this licensing problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
>>>>>point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
>>>>>not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
>>>>>BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
>>>>>But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
>>>>>will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
>>>>>2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
>>>>>accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
>>>>>Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
>>>>>those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
>>>>>order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
>>>>>JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
>>>>>3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
>>>>>Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
>>>>>NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
>>>>>doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
>>>>>XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
>>>>>at run time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
>>>>>above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
>>>>>beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
>>>>>seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
>>>>>enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
>>>>>possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
>>>>>isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
>>>>>which implies its presence.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
>>>>>XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
>>>>>users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
>>>>>Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
>>>>>
>>>>>This also has a few benefits:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>more?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>version
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to use
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
>>>>>don't need to be generated on the command line :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
>>>>>vote...additional thoughts / comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And, of course, the link helps...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just to keep everyone updated...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
>>>>>>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
>>>>>>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll send more info along as I see it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>come...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Steve--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
>>>>>>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is great news!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>created
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>for v1?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>173
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
>>>>>>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
>>>>>>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
>>>>>>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
>>>>>>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>from June.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The change I committed does a few things:
>>>>>>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
>>>>>>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
>>>>>>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
>>>>>>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>distribution
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
>>>>>>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>goes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>with this next.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Questions / comments?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
>>>>>>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>issue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>onto
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>verbage
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>side,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>SVN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>package.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>.
I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed
Annotations you mentioned Rich.
On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
> (generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
>
> Rich
>
> Carlin Rogers wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
> >committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
> >XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional
> benefits
> >both you and Rich have outlined.
> >
> >The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
> >straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
> >discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in
> the
> >DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
> >
> >Carlin
> >
> >
> >On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
> >>support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
> >>a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
> >>XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
> >>(which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
> >>forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
> >>
> >>Rich
> >>
> >>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>All--
> >>>
> >>>If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
> >>>know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
> >>>At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
> >>>resolving this licensing problem.
> >>>
> >>>In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
> >>>point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
> >>>
> >>>1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
> >>>not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
> >>>BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> >>>But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
> >>>will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
> >>>2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
> >>>accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
> >>>Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
> >>>those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
> >>>order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
> >>>JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
> >>>3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
> >>>Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
> >>>NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
> >>>doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
> >>>XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
> >>>at run time.
> >>>
> >>>Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
> >>>above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
> >>>beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
> >>>seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
> >>>enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
> >>>possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
> >>>isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
> >>>which implies its presence.
> >>>
> >>>So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
> >>>XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
> >>>users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
> >>>Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
> >>>
> >>>This also has a few benefits:
> >>>
> >>>1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
> >>>
> >>>
> >>more?)
> >>
> >>
> >>>2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a
> version
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to use
> >>
> >>
> >>>3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
> >>>don't need to be generated on the command line :)
> >>>
> >>>Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
> >>>vote...additional thoughts / comments?
> >>>
> >>>Eddie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And, of course, the link helps...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>
> >>
> >>>>:)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Just to keep everyone updated...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> >>>>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> >>>>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll send more info along as I see it...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>come...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>Rich
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Steve--
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> >>>>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Eddie,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That is great news!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>created
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>for v1?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Thanks
> >>>>>>>>Steve
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>173
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> >>>>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible
> and
> >>>>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
> >>>>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> >>>>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need
> to
> >>>>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> >>>>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>from June.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The change I committed does a few things:
> >>>>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> >>>>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> >>>>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> >>>>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the
> distribution
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> >>>>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>goes
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>with this next.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Questions / comments?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
> >>>>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>issue
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>was
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>onto
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>verbage
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>in it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
> >>>>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>side,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>SVN
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173
> package.
> >>>>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>1.0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans,
jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>.
Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
(generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
Rich
Carlin Rogers wrote:
>Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
>committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
>XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional benefits
>both you and Rich have outlined.
>
>The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
>straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
>discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in the
>DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>
>Carlin
>
>
>On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
>>support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
>>a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
>>XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
>>(which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
>>forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>All--
>>>
>>>If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
>>>know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
>>>At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
>>>resolving this licensing problem.
>>>
>>>In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
>>>point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
>>>
>>>1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
>>>not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
>>>BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
>>>But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
>>>will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
>>>2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
>>>accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
>>>Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
>>>those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
>>>order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
>>>JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
>>>3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
>>>Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
>>>NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
>>>doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
>>>XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
>>>at run time.
>>>
>>>Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
>>>above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
>>>beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
>>>seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
>>>enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
>>>possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
>>>isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
>>>which implies its presence.
>>>
>>>So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
>>>XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
>>>users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
>>>Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
>>>
>>>This also has a few benefits:
>>>
>>>1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
>>>
>>>
>>more?)
>>
>>
>>>2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version
>>>
>>>
>>to use
>>
>>
>>>3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
>>>don't need to be generated on the command line :)
>>>
>>>Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
>>>vote...additional thoughts / comments?
>>>
>>>Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And, of course, the link helps...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>>
>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just to keep everyone updated...
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
>>>>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
>>>>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll send more info along as I see it...
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>come...
>>
>>
>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Steve--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
>>>>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is great news!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>created
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>for v1?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>173
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
>>>>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
>>>>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
>>>>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
>>>>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need to
>>>>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
>>>>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>from June.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The change I committed does a few things:
>>>>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
>>>>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
>>>>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
>>>>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
>>>>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>goes
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>with this next.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Questions / comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
>>>>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>issue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>onto
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verbage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>in it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
>>>>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>side,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>SVN
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
>>>>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Chad Schoettger <ch...@gmail.com>.
I agree option 3 looks like the way to go. I'll start taking a look at the
system controls, I believe the only one affected is the EJB control. I
should be able to have a patch ready for it in the next day or so.
- Chad
On 9/14/05, Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
> committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
> XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional
> benefits
> both you and Rich have outlined.
>
> The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
> straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
> discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in
> the
> DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>
> Carlin
>
>
> On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
> > support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
> > a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
> > XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
> > (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
> > forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >
> > >All--
> > >
> > > If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
> > >know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
> > >At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
> > >resolving this licensing problem.
> > >
> > > In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
> > >point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
> > >
> > >1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
> > >not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
> > >BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> > > But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
> > >will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
> > >2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
> > >accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
> > >Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
> > >those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
> > >order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
> > >JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
> > >3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
> > >Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
> > >NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
> > >doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
> > >XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
> > >at run time.
> > >
> > >Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
> > >above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
> > >beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
> > >seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
> > >enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
> > >possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
> > >isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
> > >which implies its presence.
> > >
> > > So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
> > >XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
> > >users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
> > >Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
> > >
> > > This also has a few benefits:
> > >
> > >1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
> > more?)
> > >2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a
> version
> > to use
> > >3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
> > >don't need to be generated on the command line :)
> > >
> > > Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
> > >vote...additional thoughts / comments?
> > >
> > >Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And, of course, the link helps...
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > >>
> > >> :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Just to keep everyone updated...
> > >>>
> > >>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> > >>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> > >>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
> > >>>
> > >>>Eddie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
> > come...
> > >>>>Rich
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Steve--
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree --
> seems
> > >>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Eddie
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Eddie,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>That is great news!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
> > created
> > >>>>>>for v1?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Thanks
> > >>>>>>Steve
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> > >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> > >>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>All--
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
> > 173
> > >>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> > >>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible
> and
> > >>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks
> about
> > >>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> > >>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need
> to
> > >>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> > >>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>from June.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
> > >>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> > >>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> > >>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> > >>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the
> distribution
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> > >>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
> > goes
> > >>>>>>with this next.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Questions / comments?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Eddie
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about
> the
> > >>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> > >>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>All--
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have
> been
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>in
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>issue
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>was
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>onto
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>verbage
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>in it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
> > >>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>side,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
> > SVN
> > >>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173
> package.
> > >>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve
> the
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>1.0
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Eddie
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Carlin Rogers <ca...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional benefits
both you and Rich have outlined.
The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in the
DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
Carlin
On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
> support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
> a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
> XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
> (which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
> forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>
> Rich
>
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> >All--
> >
> > If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
> >know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
> >At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
> >resolving this licensing problem.
> >
> > In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
> >point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
> >
> >1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
> >not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
> >BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> > But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
> >will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
> >2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
> >accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
> >Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
> >those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
> >order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
> >JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
> >3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
> >Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
> >NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
> >doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
> >XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
> >at run time.
> >
> >Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
> >above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
> >beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
> >seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
> >enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
> >possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
> >isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
> >which implies its presence.
> >
> > So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
> >XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
> >users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
> >Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
> >
> > This also has a few benefits:
> >
> >1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
> more?)
> >2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version
> to use
> >3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
> >don't need to be generated on the command line :)
> >
> > Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
> >vote...additional thoughts / comments?
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And, of course, the link helps...
> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Just to keep everyone updated...
> >>>
> >>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
> >>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
> >>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
> >>>
> >>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
> >>>
> >>>Eddie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we
> come...
> >>>>Rich
> >>>>
> >>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steve--
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
> >>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is great news!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being
> created
> >>>>>>for v1?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Thanks
> >>>>>>Steve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
> >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR
> 173
> >>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
> >>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
> >>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
> >>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
> >>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need to
> >>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
> >>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>from June.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
> >>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
> >>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
> >>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
> >>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
> >>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans
> goes
> >>>>>>with this next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Questions / comments?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
> >>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
> >>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>All--
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>issue
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>was
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>onto
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>verbage
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>in it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
> >>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>side,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our
> SVN
> >>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
> >>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>1.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Eddie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans,
jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com>.
I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
(which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
Rich
Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>All--
>
> If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
>know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
>At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
>resolving this licensing problem.
>
> In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
>point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
>
>1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
>not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
>BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
> But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
>will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
>2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
>accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
>Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
>those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
>order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
>JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
>3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
>Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
>NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
>doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
>XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
>at run time.
>
>Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
>above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
>beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
>seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
>enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
>possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
>isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
>which implies its presence.
>
> So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
>XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
>users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
>Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
>
> This also has a few benefits:
>
>1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or more?)
>2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a version to use
>3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
>don't need to be generated on the command line :)
>
> Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
>vote...additional thoughts / comments?
>
>Eddie
>
>
>
>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And, of course, the link helps...
>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Just to keep everyone updated...
>>>
>>> This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
>>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet on the
>>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
>>>
>>> I'll send more info along as I see it...
>>>
>>>Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here we come...
>>>>Rich
>>>>
>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steve--
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree -- seems
>>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on doing so...
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <st...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is great news!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch being created
>>>>>>for v1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
>>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
>>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto the new JSR 173
>>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate lawyers to
>>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache compatible and
>>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from ASF folks about
>>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's possible that
>>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens, we'll need to
>>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship, though I'd
>>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible with the 2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>from June.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The change I committed does a few things:
>>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
>>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
>>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
>>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to the distribution
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since our license
>>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see where XMLBeans goes
>>>>>>with this next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Questions / comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this morinng about the
>>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
>>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you've been reading the release status e-mails that have been
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872 is tracking a license
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>issue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the JSR 173 API JAR. There
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this morning that switched
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>onto
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some different license
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>verbage
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to make sure that the
>>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken care of from their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>side,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the correct license to our SVN
>>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto the new JSR 173 package.
>>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit that and resolve the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>