You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sis.apache.org by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr> on 2012/09/10 12:37:56 UTC
JAR plugin configuration
META-INF/MANIFEST files have two kind of entries (among others):
* Specification title, version and vendor
* Implementation title, version and vendor
The default Apache configuration sets those two kind of entries to the
same values, which is inferred from the Apache project name and version.
This is fine for the implementation entries. However I suggest to set
the specification entries to the following, if SIS is aimed to be the
reference implementation of GeoAPI interfaces:
<Specification-Title>GeoAPI</Specification-Title>
<Specification-Version>${geoapi.version}</Specification-Version>
<Specification-Vendor>Open Geospatial Consortium</Specification-Vendor>
Any objection?
Martin
Re: JAR plugin configuration
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Martin,
On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Le 12/09/12 00:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>>> Actually I don't think that this information binds us to any licensing. I see it more as a documentation thing, i.e. advising that we try to implement some specification...
>> You may be right about that :) If no one else chimes in (specifically was looking for Kevan to comment), then I am OK with proceeding.
>> It seems to me though that the specification portion of the JAR files that Apache distributes should probably be related to the foundation
>> itself. So more so than legal, it's a branding thing ("i think") :)
>
> Apache is still declared as the implementor. My understanding is that for the Derby database (for instance), the "specification" section would declare JDBC and the "implementation" section would declare Apache (Derby is not currently declaring those sections, but if it did I think that would be the idea). The same would apply to XML parsers, JEE implementations, etc.
Got it, OK makes sense.
>
>> So let's see what comes of it. If no one speaks up in the next few days let's proceed.
>
> Fine, I will wait to next week.
Cool, thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: JAR plugin configuration
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Le 12/09/12 00:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>> Actually I don't think that this information binds us to any licensing. I see it more as a documentation thing, i.e. advising that we try to implement some specification...
> You may be right about that :) If no one else chimes in (specifically was looking for Kevan to comment), then I am OK with proceeding.
> It seems to me though that the specification portion of the JAR files that Apache distributes should probably be related to the foundation
> itself. So more so than legal, it's a branding thing ("i think") :)
Apache is still declared as the implementor. My understanding is that
for the Derby database (for instance), the "specification" section would
declare JDBC and the "implementation" section would declare Apache
(Derby is not currently declaring those sections, but if it did I think
that would be the idea). The same would apply to XML parsers, JEE
implementations, etc.
> So let's see what comes of it. If no one speaks up in the next few days let's proceed.
Fine, I will wait to next week.
Martin
Re: JAR plugin configuration
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Martin,
On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Le 10/09/12 23:48, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
>> I don't have any objection, but I think we should check with Kevan Miller
>> on the SIS project -- Kevan is usually pretty familiar with the licensing aspect
>> of this stuff. Kevan?
>
> Actually I don't think that this information binds us to any licensing. I see it more as a documentation thing, i.e. advising that we try to implement some specification...
>
You may be right about that :) If no one else chimes in (specifically was looking for Kevan to comment), then I am OK with proceeding.
It seems to me though that the specification portion of the JAR files that Apache distributes should probably be related to the foundation
itself. So more so than legal, it's a branding thing ("i think") :)
So let's see what comes of it. If no one speaks up in the next few days let's proceed.
Cheers,
Chris
>
>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>>> META-INF/MANIFEST files have two kind of entries (among others):
>>>
>>> * Specification title, version and vendor
>>> * Implementation title, version and vendor
>>>
>>> The default Apache configuration sets those two kind of entries to the same values, which is inferred from the Apache project name and version. This is fine for the implementation entries. However I suggest to set the specification entries to the following, if SIS is aimed to be the reference implementation of GeoAPI interfaces:
>>>
>>> <Specification-Title>GeoAPI</Specification-Title>
>>> <Specification-Version>${geoapi.version}</Specification-Version>
>>> <Specification-Vendor>Open Geospatial Consortium</Specification-Vendor>
>>>
>>> Any objection?
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: JAR plugin configuration
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Le 10/09/12 23:48, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
> I don't have any objection, but I think we should check with Kevan Miller
> on the SIS project -- Kevan is usually pretty familiar with the licensing aspect
> of this stuff. Kevan?
Actually I don't think that this information binds us to any licensing.
I see it more as a documentation thing, i.e. advising that we try to
implement some specification...
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>> META-INF/MANIFEST files have two kind of entries (among others):
>>
>> * Specification title, version and vendor
>> * Implementation title, version and vendor
>>
>> The default Apache configuration sets those two kind of entries to the same values, which is inferred from the Apache project name and version. This is fine for the implementation entries. However I suggest to set the specification entries to the following, if SIS is aimed to be the reference implementation of GeoAPI interfaces:
>>
>> <Specification-Title>GeoAPI</Specification-Title>
>> <Specification-Version>${geoapi.version}</Specification-Version>
>> <Specification-Vendor>Open Geospatial Consortium</Specification-Vendor>
>>
>> Any objection?
Re: JAR plugin configuration
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Martin,
I don't have any objection, but I think we should check with Kevan Miller
on the SIS project -- Kevan is usually pretty familiar with the licensing aspect
of this stuff. Kevan?
Cheers,
Chris
On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> META-INF/MANIFEST files have two kind of entries (among others):
>
> * Specification title, version and vendor
> * Implementation title, version and vendor
>
> The default Apache configuration sets those two kind of entries to the same values, which is inferred from the Apache project name and version. This is fine for the implementation entries. However I suggest to set the specification entries to the following, if SIS is aimed to be the reference implementation of GeoAPI interfaces:
>
> <Specification-Title>GeoAPI</Specification-Title>
> <Specification-Version>${geoapi.version}</Specification-Version>
> <Specification-Vendor>Open Geospatial Consortium</Specification-Vendor>
>
> Any objection?
>
> Martin
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++