You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2008/03/03 23:57:14 UTC
[uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
uima-as
(base) uima
some Spring jars
some ActiveMQ jars
saxon 8 or 9 jar
Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
The packaging needs to do something about these.
LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
further on this.
README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
leave it at that.
Does this seem right?
-Marshall
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Thilo Goetz wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
> [...]
>> From a dependency viewpoint, there still is a dependency on uimaj as
>> a superPOM. As long as we're keeping a strategy of common-ness among
>> the projects, I guess I think that's OK.
>
> My concern is that we must build a source distribution that people then
> need to be able to actually build ;-). So the question is, how do we
> swing that with this dependency? Do we tell people to extract uimaj
> from svn and put it into the source distribution (not good IMHO)? Or
> maybe distribute uimaj with the source distributions of the sandbox?
I agree it's not good to require extracting uimaj to build sandbox
things. Unless some unexpected consequences get discovered, I guess I
would suggest undoing the coupling in the superPom linkages between the
sandbox projects and the uimaj project. That would cause a small bit of
duplication, but that's a good trade off IMHO in this case.
Other opinions?
-Marshall
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
[...]
> From a dependency viewpoint, there still is a dependency on uimaj as a
> superPOM. As long as we're keeping a strategy of common-ness among the
> projects, I guess I think that's OK.
My concern is that we must build a source distribution that people then
need to be able to actually build ;-). So the question is, how do we
swing that with this dependency? Do we tell people to extract uimaj
from svn and put it into the source distribution (not good IMHO)? Or
maybe distribute uimaj with the source distributions of the sandbox?
--Thilo
>
> Opinions?
> -Marshall
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Thilo Goetz wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>>
>> uima-as
>> (base) uima
>> some Spring jars
>> some ActiveMQ jars
>> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>>
>> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>>
>> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>>
>> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
>> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
>> further on this.
>> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
>> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
>> leave it at that.
>>
>> Does this seem right?
>>
>> -Marshall
>
> Sorry about the multiple replies...
>
> While working on this, could we also eliminate the sandbox dependencies
> on uimaj-distr? Since we need to have source distros for the various
> sandbox releases we're planning, it would be good if they didn't have
> any non-maven (i.e., local) dependencies. It would mean duplicating
> at least the incubation disclaimer, but I think we can manage that.
> Opinions?
I think this may be a good idea. The LICENSE/NOTICE/README files
probably will be different for the at least some of the sandbox projects.
From a dependency viewpoint, there still is a dependency on uimaj as a
superPOM. As long as we're keeping a strategy of common-ness among the
projects, I guess I think that's OK.
Opinions?
-Marshall
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>
> uima-as
> (base) uima
> some Spring jars
> some ActiveMQ jars
> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>
> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>
> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>
> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
> further on this.
> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
> leave it at that.
>
> Does this seem right?
>
> -Marshall
Sorry about the multiple replies...
While working on this, could we also eliminate the sandbox dependencies
on uimaj-distr? Since we need to have source distros for the various
sandbox releases we're planning, it would be good if they didn't have
any non-maven (i.e., local) dependencies. It would mean duplicating
at least the incubation disclaimer, but I think we can manage that.
Opinions?
--Thilo
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>>>
>>> uima-as
>>> (base) uima
>>> some Spring jars
>>> some ActiveMQ jars
>>> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>>>
>>> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>>>
>>> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>>>
>>> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
>>> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>>> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
>>> further on this.
>>> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
>>> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
>>> leave it at that.
>>>
>>> Does this seem right?
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>> Saxon comes with several licenses, for historical reasons. Some of
>> them are non-standard. None look problematic to me, but somebody
>> should take this up with legal-discuss to see if there are any issues.
>> Do we know of any other Apache projects that ship Saxon?
> Yes. ServiceMix does, and ActiveMq does, as part of their "Camel"
> subproject. http://activemq.apache.org/camel/
Couldn't find saxon in Camel (1.2.0). ServiceMix does include saxon, but
they don't have it in their NOTICE file, which is bad. I found this, which
seems to have disappeared for later versions:
http://saxon.sourceforge.net/saxon6.5.2/conditions.html
>
> I'll use them as models to set up the license and notice files.
> ServiceMix uses the Mozilla Public License 1.0 version of Saxon - I plan
> to use that one too.
> Thanks for the suggestion to look for other projects already doing this :-)
>
> -Marshall
>>
>> --Thilo
>>
>>
>>
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Thilo Goetz wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>>
>> uima-as
>> (base) uima
>> some Spring jars
>> some ActiveMQ jars
>> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>>
>> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>>
>> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>>
>> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
>> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
>> further on this.
>> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
>> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
>> leave it at that.
>>
>> Does this seem right?
>>
>> -Marshall
>
> Saxon comes with several licenses, for historical reasons. Some of
> them are non-standard. None look problematic to me, but somebody
> should take this up with legal-discuss to see if there are any issues.
> Do we know of any other Apache projects that ship Saxon?
Yes. ServiceMix does, and ActiveMq does, as part of their "Camel"
subproject. http://activemq.apache.org/camel/
I'll use them as models to set up the license and notice files.
ServiceMix uses the Mozilla Public License 1.0 version of Saxon - I plan
to use that one too.
Thanks for the suggestion to look for other projects already doing this :-)
-Marshall
>
> --Thilo
>
>
>
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>
> uima-as
> (base) uima
> some Spring jars
> some ActiveMQ jars
> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>
> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>
> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>
> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
> further on this.
> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
> leave it at that.
>
> Does this seem right?
>
> -Marshall
Saxon comes with several licenses, for historical reasons. Some of
them are non-standard. None look problematic to me, but somebody
should take this up with legal-discuss to see if there are any issues.
Do we know of any other Apache projects that ship Saxon?
--Thilo
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>
> uima-as
> (base) uima
> some Spring jars
> some ActiveMQ jars
> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>
> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
>
> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>
> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
> further on this.
> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
> leave it at that.
>
> Does this seem right?
>
> -Marshall
Check the new legal wiki http://wiki.apache.org/legal/. It has condensed
info on the required files.
--Thilo
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging files from parts being included
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> No one has responded with opinions on whether or not to exclude the base
> uima API doc and docbook docs from the binary distribution build. At
> the moment, they are being excluded.
>
> -Marshall
>
I agree with the uima-as package only having pointers to all base UIMA
documentation on the Apache UIMA webpage.
Eddie
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
No one has responded with opinions on whether or not to exclude the base
uima API doc and docbook docs from the binary distribution build. At
the moment, they are being excluded.
-Marshall
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>>
>> uima-as
>> (base) uima
>> some Spring jars
>> some ActiveMQ jars
>> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>>
>> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
> Also need JavaDocs, Docbooks, examples
>>
>> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>>
>> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
>> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
>> further on this.
>> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
>> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
>> leave it at that.
> JavaDocs - suggest we exclude the base UIMA java docs?
> Docbooks - suggest we exclude the base UIMA Docbooks?
> Examples - suggest we include the examples. and merge the examples for
> uima-as. Where are the examples for uima-as?
>
> -Marshall
>>
>> Does this seem right?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging files from parts being included
Posted by Eddie Epstein <ea...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Examples - suggest we include the examples. and merge the examples for
> uima-as. Where are the examples for uima-as?
There are two types of examples: deployment and code samples. Looks
like the example deployment descriptors are missing. These
descriptors, which would go into a new subdirectory
$UIMA_HOME/examples/deploy/as, wrap several base UIMA example
components, and illustrate some of the various deployment options.
Deploy_MeetingDetectorTAE.xml
Deploy_RoomNumberAnnotator.xml
Deploy_MeetingDetectorTAE_Whiteboard.xml
Deploy_MeetingDetectorTAE_RemoteRoomNumber.xml
Deploy_MeetingDetectorTAE_3MeetingAnnotators.xml
Deploy_MeetingDetectorTAE_Sync_3Instances.xml
I'll create a jira issue to add these.
The only sample code is runRemoteAsyncAE.java which is in
uimaj-as-activemq/src/main/java/org/apache/uima/examples/ee
Eddie
Re: [uima-as] packaging the binary, choices to make, concerning merging
files from parts being included
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Marshall Schor wrote:
> The parts being included in the binary distribution of uima-as include:
>
> uima-as
> (base) uima
> some Spring jars
> some ActiveMQ jars
> saxon 8 or 9 jar
>
> Each of these probably have LICENSE, NOTICE, README files.
Also need JavaDocs, Docbooks, examples
>
> The packaging needs to do something about these.
>
> LICENSE - must be merged, 1 file. see
> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> NOTICE - not specified. Perhaps doesn't need to be merged. I'll dig
> further on this.
> README - not specified. Suggest we have have just one README for
> uima-as, incorporating whatever seems reasonable from base uima, and
> leave it at that.
JavaDocs - suggest we exclude the base UIMA java docs?
Docbooks - suggest we exclude the base UIMA Docbooks?
Examples - suggest we include the examples. and merge the examples for
uima-as. Where are the examples for uima-as?
-Marshall
>
> Does this seem right?
>
> -Marshall
>
>