You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xml-commons-dev@xerces.apache.org by Norman Walsh <nd...@nwalsh.com> on 2008/08/14 19:40:59 UTC
Re: Future of xml-commons-resolver development and maintenance
/ "Earl Hood" <ea...@earlhood.com> was heard to say:
| If you no longer have the time and resources to work on the
| resolver, are you open to transitioning maintenance to others
| whom have cycles to spare?
Sorry, I didn't mean to leave this unanswered for so long. Getting
ramped up in my new job has consumed most of my bandwidth for a couple
of months.
I'm unlikely to have a lot of time to work on it, so I think it's
reasonable to transition the maintenance over to others.
In the meantime, I did rewrite it a while back, see xmlresolver.dev.java.net.
I've been running the new code for months without issues, but it's
probably still not as well tested as the code in the Apache Commons
project.
My motivations for the rewrite were at least three-fold:
1. The design of the current code base really isn't all that good. I
didn't know all that much Java when I started and I think some of
my choices were poor ones. (Some of my new choices may be poor too,
of course :-).
2. I wanted to support the idea of an automatic local cache, so that
users don't have to manually build catalog files.
3. I wanted to try to support RDDL.
I'm not sure how (or if) that rewrite should be factored into a transition
plan, but I thought I should mention it.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <nd...@nwalsh.com> | DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just
http://nwalsh.com/ | is. And we dance to its music.--Richard
| Dawkins
Re: Future of xml-commons-resolver development and maintenance
Posted by Norman Walsh <nd...@nwalsh.com>.
/ Michael Glavassevich <mr...@apache.org> was heard to say:
| I think since Norm is the author of xmlresolver.dev.java.net he could
| relicense it under the Apache license and donate it to xml-commons if he
| chooses. Would probably be a good idea to follow-up on the
| legal-discuss@apache.org list if folks are interested in pursuing this.
I'd be happy to change the license. I'll see if I can repost the code in
the next day or two.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <nd...@nwalsh.com> | Time wounds all heels.
http://nwalsh.com/ |
Re: Future of xml-commons-resolver development and maintenance
Posted by Michael Glavassevich <mr...@apache.org>.
Hi Earl,
GPL is a non-starter here. You cannot include code under this license in any
Apache project. Be very careful if you're taking a look at GPL code and
contributing to similar Apache projects (so as not to indavertently
contaminate the codebase). I personally avoid looking at it altogether.
I think since Norm is the author of xmlresolver.dev.java.net he could
relicense it under the Apache license and donate it to xml-commons if he
chooses. Would probably be a good idea to follow-up on the
legal-discuss@apache.org list if folks are interested in pursuing this.
Thanks.
Earl Hood wrote:
>
> On August 14, 2008 at 13:40, Norman Walsh wrote:
>
>> I'm unlikely to have a lot of time to work on it, so I think it's
>> reasonable to transition the maintenance over to others.
>
> Thanks for responding.
>
> It does seem that some action on commons-resolver is occuring,
> with those having commit access starting to incorporate patches
> that have been submitted. I've submiited a signed license
> document so ASF can include the patches I have posted.
>
>> In the meantime, I did rewrite it a while back, see
>> xmlresolver.dev.java.net.
>
> I'll try to take a look at it when I get time.
>
>> My motivations for the rewrite were at least three-fold:
>>
>> 1. The design of the current code base really isn't all that good. I
>> didn't know all that much Java when I started and I think some of
>> my choices were poor ones. (Some of my new choices may be poor too,
>> of course :-).
>
> I think we all can look at code we have written in the past and
> realized things could have been done better :)
>
> It seems the features you have added into your newer project could
> be added into commons-resolver if there is enough demand for such
> features.
>
> One thing that may be a problem with your rewrite is the license you
> have for it: GPL. I personally have no problems with the GPL, but the
> license may be prohibitive for some. This could prevent any potential
> transition to a newer resolver implementation for some projects.
>
> Good luck with your new job,
>
> --ewh
> --
> Earl Hood, <ea...@earlhood.com>
> Web: <http://www.earlhood.com/>
> PGP Public Key: <http://www.earlhood.com/gpgpubkey.txt>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Future-of-xml-commons-resolver-development-and-maintenance-tp17853607p19008422.html
Sent from the Apache XML - Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Future of xml-commons-resolver development and maintenance
Posted by Earl Hood <ea...@earlhood.com>.
On August 14, 2008 at 13:40, Norman Walsh wrote:
> I'm unlikely to have a lot of time to work on it, so I think it's
> reasonable to transition the maintenance over to others.
Thanks for responding.
It does seem that some action on commons-resolver is occuring,
with those having commit access starting to incorporate patches
that have been submitted. I've submiited a signed license
document so ASF can include the patches I have posted.
> In the meantime, I did rewrite it a while back, see
> xmlresolver.dev.java.net.
I'll try to take a look at it when I get time.
> My motivations for the rewrite were at least three-fold:
>
> 1. The design of the current code base really isn't all that good. I
> didn't know all that much Java when I started and I think some of
> my choices were poor ones. (Some of my new choices may be poor too,
> of course :-).
I think we all can look at code we have written in the past and
realized things could have been done better :)
It seems the features you have added into your newer project could
be added into commons-resolver if there is enough demand for such
features.
One thing that may be a problem with your rewrite is the license you
have for it: GPL. I personally have no problems with the GPL, but the
license may be prohibitive for some. This could prevent any potential
transition to a newer resolver implementation for some projects.
Good luck with your new job,
--ewh
--
Earl Hood, <ea...@earlhood.com>
Web: <http://www.earlhood.com/>
PGP Public Key: <http://www.earlhood.com/gpgpubkey.txt>