You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2007/08/06 15:16:03 UTC
2.0 release status
Here's where things stand at the moment
Specs
We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I don't
think that it is necessary to do that now.
Schemas
We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
are built from CDDL licensed materials. At the moment, the license
and notice files for the schema releases are not correct. I think we
should do the following: move the schema source directories from our
tck svn repository to our public repository, fix our license and
notice files, and build schema releases from there. Note that both
the schema source directories and the resultant schema binaries will
have CDDL licensed elements. The current guidance that we have
received from legal-discuss is that both source and binary CDDL is ok
for us to release. We will need to be sure that our schemas follow
all CDDL requirements.
TX-Manager and Connector components
The recently released 2.0 version of geronimo-connector has a
problem. The geronimo-connector-2.0-tests.jar does not contain any
classes. So, server builds fail when running tests. Matt has created
a 2.0.1 release. We'll need to vote on this new release.
2.0 Release
Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked out
the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we can
start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either cover
the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would be
dependent on separate release votes.
--kevan
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is crude!! First I ran the build on
> modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder with
> IBMJDK1.5.0 with tests turned off to be able to build the module.
> Then I
> ran the build (not a clean build) with SunJDK1.5.0 with tests on and
> the
> tests passed!!
>
> --vamsi
>
.......................................
> > When I build modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder, I get a build failure
> with
> > XmlBeans compile failed.
I recently ran into a similar problem. In my case I ran "mvn clean"
on modules, which downloaded the latest xmlbeans plugin but it did not
update its dependencies!!! One could say it does not need them to
perform clean operation. Later when j2ee-builder was being built, I got
the error you mentioned. I deleted xmlbeans plugin from .m2 repo and
built using "mvn" from geronoimo-j2ee-builder (or modules) directory.
This time the plugin and all its dependencies were downloaded and the
build was successful.
So if a plugin is downloaded/updated during mvn clean, its
dependencies may not be the latest. It's a maven thing...
Thanks
Anita
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
This is crude!! First I ran the build on modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder with
IBMJDK1.5.0 with tests turned off to be able to build the module. Then I
ran the build (not a clean build) with SunJDK1.5.0 with tests on and the
tests passed!!
--vamsi
On 8/6/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/6/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here's where things stand at the moment
> >
> > Specs
> > We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
> > licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
> > specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
> > materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
> > materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I don't
> > think that it is necessary to do that now.
> >
> > Schemas
> > We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
> > are built from CDDL licensed materials. At the moment, the license
> > and notice files for the schema releases are not correct. I think we
> > should do the following: move the schema source directories from our
> > tck svn repository to our public repository, fix our license and
> > notice files, and build schema releases from there. Note that both
> > the schema source directories and the resultant schema binaries will
> > have CDDL licensed elements. The current guidance that we have
> > received from legal-discuss is that both source and binary CDDL is ok
> > for us to release. We will need to be sure that our schemas follow
> > all CDDL requirements.
> >
> > TX-Manager and Connector components
> > The recently released 2.0 version of geronimo-connector has a
> > problem. The geronimo-connector-2.0-tests.jar does not contain any
> > classes. So, server builds fail when running tests. Matt has created
> > a 2.0.1 release. We'll need to vote on this new release.
> >
> > 2.0 Release
> > Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
> > preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
> > because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked out
> > the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we can
> > start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either cover
> > the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would be
> > dependent on separate release votes.
>
>
> I do not know if this information is of great help and if the module I am
> referring here is the one causing build failure. I only hope it is useful.
> When I build modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder, I get a build failure with
> XmlBeans compile failed. If I use IBMJDK1.5.0 it builds fine, but,
> without the tests on. I remember running into a similar problem attempting
> to build G1.1 or 1.2 (I don't remember exactly) with IBMJDK and that time
> I had to tweak some "exclusion" tags to get past some errors. This is what
> prompted me to attempt if that module builds fine using IBMJDK. I have no
> explanation why the module builds fine in branches\2.0.
>
> --vamsi
>
> --kevan
> >
>
>
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 6, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> 2.0 Release
> Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
> preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
> because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked out
> the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we can
> start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either cover
> the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would be
> dependent on separate release votes.
>
> I do not know if this information is of great help and if the
> module I am referring here is the one causing build failure. I
> only hope it is useful. When I build modules\geronimo-j2ee-
> builder, I get a build failure with XmlBeans compile failed. If I
> use IBMJDK1.5.0 it builds fine, but, without the tests on. I
> remember running into a similar problem attempting to build G1.1 or
> 1.2 (I don't remember exactly) with IBMJDK and that time I had to
> tweak some "exclusion" tags to get past some errors. This is what
> prompted me to attempt if that module builds fine using IBMJDK. I
> have no explanation why the module builds fine in branches\2.0.
Turned out the problem was a bad geronimo-schema-j2ee_1.4 version. We
were using 1.1-SNAPSHOT (which is wrong should be 1.2-SNAPSHOT) and
switched to 1.1 for the release. This changed mavens classloading
during the build in some subtle way. Fixing the version fixed the
test error.
Thanks to David Jencks for a helping hand...
--kevan
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Here are my results -
1) Rebuilt Specs 1.4 and 1.5 on Linux with Sun 1.5.0_11 and the released
maven-xmlbeans-plugin-2.3.1.
2) Built the server on Linux w/ IBM 1.5.0 SR4 (except for geronimo-corba which
requires Sun JDK) with the released maven-xmlbeans-plugin-2.3.1 and tests
enabled - everything built.
I also built the server on Linux w/ Sun 1.5.0_11 using the specs I rebuilt in
#1 above and everything worked....
Maybe the specs and server have to be built with the same
maven-xmlbeans-plugin level???
-Donald
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/07, *Kevan Miller* <kevan.miller@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Here's where things stand at the moment
>
> Specs
> We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
> licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
> specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
> materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
> materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I don't
> think that it is necessary to do that now.
>
> Schemas
> We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
> are built from CDDL licensed materials. At the moment, the license
> and notice files for the schema releases are not correct. I think we
> should do the following: move the schema source directories from our
> tck svn repository to our public repository, fix our license and
> notice files, and build schema releases from there. Note that both
> the schema source directories and the resultant schema binaries will
> have CDDL licensed elements. The current guidance that we have
> received from legal-discuss is that both source and binary CDDL is ok
> for us to release. We will need to be sure that our schemas follow
> all CDDL requirements.
>
> TX-Manager and Connector components
> The recently released 2.0 version of geronimo-connector has a
> problem. The geronimo-connector-2.0-tests.jar does not contain any
> classes. So, server builds fail when running tests. Matt has created
> a 2.0.1 release. We'll need to vote on this new release.
>
> 2.0 Release
> Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
> preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
> because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked out
> the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we can
> start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either cover
> the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would be
> dependent on separate release votes.
>
>
> I do not know if this information is of great help and if the module I
> am referring here is the one causing build failure. I only hope it is
> useful. When I build modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder, I get a build
> failure with XmlBeans compile failed. If I use IBMJDK1.5.0 it builds
> fine, but, without the tests on. I remember running into a similar
> problem attempting to build G1.1 or 1.2 (I don't remember exactly) with
> IBMJDK and that time I had to tweak some "exclusion" tags to get past
> some errors. This is what prompted me to attempt if that module builds
> fine using IBMJDK. I have no explanation why the module builds fine in
> branches\2.0.
>
> --vamsi
>
> --kevan
>
>
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 8/6/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's where things stand at the moment
>
> Specs
> We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
> licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
> specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
> materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
> materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I don't
> think that it is necessary to do that now.
>
> Schemas
> We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
> are built from CDDL licensed materials. At the moment, the license
> and notice files for the schema releases are not correct. I think we
> should do the following: move the schema source directories from our
> tck svn repository to our public repository, fix our license and
> notice files, and build schema releases from there. Note that both
> the schema source directories and the resultant schema binaries will
> have CDDL licensed elements. The current guidance that we have
> received from legal-discuss is that both source and binary CDDL is ok
> for us to release. We will need to be sure that our schemas follow
> all CDDL requirements.
>
> TX-Manager and Connector components
> The recently released 2.0 version of geronimo-connector has a
> problem. The geronimo-connector-2.0-tests.jar does not contain any
> classes. So, server builds fail when running tests. Matt has created
> a 2.0.1 release. We'll need to vote on this new release.
>
> 2.0 Release
> Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
> preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
> because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked out
> the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we can
> start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either cover
> the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would be
> dependent on separate release votes.
I do not know if this information is of great help and if the module I am
referring here is the one causing build failure. I only hope it is useful.
When I build modules\geronimo-j2ee-builder, I get a build failure with
XmlBeans compile failed. If I use IBMJDK1.5.0 it builds fine, but, without
the tests on. I remember running into a similar problem attempting to build
G1.1 or 1.2 (I don't remember exactly) with IBMJDK and that time I had to
tweak some "exclusion" tags to get past some errors. This is what prompted
me to attempt if that module builds fine using IBMJDK. I have no
explanation why the module builds fine in branches\2.0.
--vamsi
--kevan
>
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:25 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> Here's where things stand at the moment
>>
>> Specs
>> We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
>> licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
>> specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
>> materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
>> materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I
>> don't think that it is necessary to do that now.
>
> It would also make it so we couldn't release them according to the
> draft 3rd party licensing policy at http://people.apache.org/
> ~cliffs/3party.html which prohibits cddl source code in apache
> releases ("Categoy B). Sam has indicated that xsds are source code
> in his opinion and I certainly agree.
I also agree that they are source code.
According to the draft 3rd party licensing policy, you are correct. I
used to treat that very literally.
However, we have also gotten a clear advice from Sam Ruby, a member
and current chair of the ASF legal team, that the use of CDDL schemas
is ok. In fact, Sam has instructed all projects to replace Sun
Proprietary/confidential dtd's and xsd's with their CDDL equivalent.
As long as the Geronimo PMC agrees and we follow the rules of the
CDDL license, I don't see a problem. I think we're better off.
>
>>
>> Schemas
>> We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
>> are built from CDDL licensed materials.
> I believe the copies under vote are NOT built from CDDL but from
> the previous non-cddl xsds. I guess only Prasad knows for sure.
I believe you are correct. I got ahead of myself.
>
>> At the moment, the license and notice files for the schema
>> releases are not correct.
> I think they are correct , since the jars are not built from cddl
> sources. In any case I think that (in disagreement to Craig
> Russell) that even if we started with CDDL schemas the xmlbeans
> generated source and binary would be under asf, not cddl. If not,
> then the xmlbeans code we've been using generated from the pre-cddl
> schemas would be under the mysterious sun license that prohibits
> all use, so we wouldn't be able to write a javaee server in the
> first place.
I'm going to skip this for now. We can come back to it, if you still
feel we should not move to CDDL licensed schemas.
>
>> I think we should do the following: move the schema source
>> directories from our tck svn repository to our public repository,
>> fix our license and notice files, and build schema releases from
>> there. Note that both the schema source directories and the
>> resultant schema binaries will have CDDL licensed elements. The
>> current guidance that we have received from legal-discuss is that
>> both source and binary CDDL is ok for us to release. We will need
>> to be sure that our schemas follow all CDDL requirements.
>
> I don't think we should do this until the violent disagreement
> between the 3rd party licensing policy and sam's suggestion that
> it's ok to use the cddl xsds is resolved.
I don't think there's a violent disagreement. I think Sam's opinion
on the matter carries a lot of weight and also makes a lot of sense.
There was some discussion about whether or not schemas are source or
binary. Seems we both agree they are source. So, let's assume they
are source and treat them accordingly.
There is also some discussion about whether xmlbeans or jaxb
generated code would inherit a CDDL license. This may be debatable.
Best case the code is ASL. Worst case it's ASL+CDDL or even just
CDDL. IMO, we can deal just fine with all of those cases. So, let's
make our best call on the appropriate license for the schema jars.
IMO, we end up in a better situation. In particular, we move our
schema code out of tck svn -- this seems like a very, very good thing
to me. Other than the overhead of moving some code, building new
release candidates, and minor mods to license/notice files, I don't
see a downside...
--kevan
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 6, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Here's where things stand at the moment
>
> Specs
> We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
> licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
> specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
> materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
> materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I don't
> think that it is necessary to do that now.
It would also make it so we couldn't release them according to the
draft 3rd party licensing policy at http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/
3party.html which prohibits cddl source code in apache releases
("Categoy B). Sam has indicated that xsds are source code in his
opinion and I certainly agree.
>
> Schemas
> We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
> are built from CDDL licensed materials.
I believe the copies under vote are NOT built from CDDL but from the
previous non-cddl xsds. I guess only Prasad knows for sure.
> At the moment, the license and notice files for the schema releases
> are not correct.
I think they are correct , since the jars are not built from cddl
sources. In any case I think that (in disagreement to Craig Russell)
that even if we started with CDDL schemas the xmlbeans generated
source and binary would be under asf, not cddl. If not, then the
xmlbeans code we've been using generated from the pre-cddl schemas
would be under the mysterious sun license that prohibits all use, so
we wouldn't be able to write a javaee server in the first place.
> I think we should do the following: move the schema source
> directories from our tck svn repository to our public repository,
> fix our license and notice files, and build schema releases from
> there. Note that both the schema source directories and the
> resultant schema binaries will have CDDL licensed elements. The
> current guidance that we have received from legal-discuss is that
> both source and binary CDDL is ok for us to release. We will need
> to be sure that our schemas follow all CDDL requirements.
I don't think we should do this until the violent disagreement
between the 3rd party licensing policy and sam's suggestion that it's
ok to use the cddl xsds is resolved.
thanks
david jencks
>
> TX-Manager and Connector components
> The recently released 2.0 version of geronimo-connector has a
> problem. The geronimo-connector-2.0-tests.jar does not contain any
> classes. So, server builds fail when running tests. Matt has
> created a 2.0.1 release. We'll need to vote on this new release.
>
> 2.0 Release
> Matt and I have been working on updating branches/2.0.0 in
> preparation for a release. At the moment, the build is failing
> because of an xmlbeans version incompatibility. I haven't worked
> out the cause of this problem, yet. Once we're able to build, we
> can start testing and get a release vote started. This vote either
> cover the above specs/schemas/components releases or the vote would
> be dependent on separate release votes.
>
> --kevan
Re: 2.0 release status
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 6, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> Schemas
> We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
> are built from CDDL licensed materials. At the moment, the license
> and notice files for the schema releases are not correct. I think
> we should do the following: move the schema source directories from
> our tck svn repository to our public repository, fix our license
> and notice files, and build schema releases from there. Note that
> both the schema source directories and the resultant schema
> binaries will have CDDL licensed elements. The current guidance
> that we have received from legal-discuss is that both source and
> binary CDDL is ok for us to release. We will need to be sure that
> our schemas follow all CDDL requirements.
As David Jencks reminded me, we're not building the schema jars from
CDDL licensed materials. I'm convinced that what we're doing is
valid. So, I'm withdrawing my objections on the schema releases.
I think we should move our schemas to use CDDL licensed schemas. I
think that's the right direction. However, that doesn't have to occur
immediately. What we have works and is valid, in my estimation. So,
let's ship it...
--kevan