You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> on 2006/04/25 23:14:08 UTC
including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Just a friendly reminder to those working on the core or model to
please include celtix in their refactorings. I accidentally forgot to
check in my refactors (sandbox is separate) and run the checkstyle
tests from celtix/binding.celtix resulting in Dan having a broken
demo :-( Also, someone else modifying the loader forgot to include
the project in their refactors (I fixed it)...
Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build process. I
would like to due this using lazy consensus with the caveat that the
cut-over be done after the Java One release to avoid disruption and
give people a chance to adjust code gradually. The checkstyle
configuration is fairly rigorous and we will need to divide up the
work to do so by project.
Jim
Re: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 4/25/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
<snip/>
Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build process. I
> would like to due this using lazy consensus with the caveat that the
> cut-over be done after the Java One release to avoid disruption and
> give people a chance to adjust code gradually. The checkstyle
> configuration is fairly rigorous and we will need to divide up the
> work to do so by project.
-1 as its not really clear to me what you're proposing and I think some
people may have missed this vote as its hidden away at the bottom of an
email about the celtix binding.
Have you a link to Dan's proposal or a summary of what checkstyle is going
to be enforcing.
...ant
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Jeremy,
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:51, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > oops! i meant EPL
> >
> > On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Jean-Sebastien,
> > >
> > > Just checked with Cliff. CDDL jars are ok both for inclusion in our
> > > SVN and as part of a distribution. So +1 from me.
>
> Although Celtix itself is EPL I think that some of the things that it
> depends on may be under more restrictive licenses (CDDL, maybe one of
> Sun's many binary licenses). I think that will prevent us from
> including a complete (with dependencies) version with a distro
> although we should be able to distribute the extension with directions
> on which 3rd party libraries a user would need to obtain separately.
I just had some email exchanges with Cliff and it looks like we're
completely OK. Cliff has a page he is preparing for information about
valid licenses for apache stuff:
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
The CDDL license is completely ok for re-distribution.
Cliff and I then went through everything in Celtix, and other than Rhino
which is optional, all licenses are OK with apache stuff.
Thanks!
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including
celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> The Sun binary license allows complete re-distribution as part of a full
> product distribution. It just doesn't allow you to distribute the jars
> individually. Thus, the tuscany distribution should be fine. We just
> cannot check them into the apache svn repository.
>
IANAL but AIUI the redistribution license has terms on it that Apache
can't easily satisfy (e.g. indemnification) so I would be leery of
including them in a distro.
--
Jeremy
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:51, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > oops! i meant EPL
> >
> > On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Jean-Sebastien,
> > >
> > > Just checked with Cliff. CDDL jars are ok both for inclusion in our
> > > SVN and as part of a distribution. So +1 from me.
>
> Although Celtix itself is EPL I think that some of the things that it
> depends on may be under more restrictive licenses (CDDL, maybe one of
> Sun's many binary licenses). I think that will prevent us from
> including a complete (with dependencies) version with a distro
> although we should be able to distribute the extension with directions
> on which 3rd party libraries a user would need to obtain separately.
The Sun binary license allows complete re-distribution as part of a full
product distribution. It just doesn't allow you to distribute the jars
individually. Thus, the tuscany distribution should be fine. We just
cannot check them into the apache svn repository.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@gmail.com>.
On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> oops! i meant EPL
>
> On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jean-Sebastien,
> >
> > Just checked with Cliff. CDDL jars are ok both for inclusion in our
> > SVN and as part of a distribution. So +1 from me.
> >
Although Celtix itself is EPL I think that some of the things that it
depends on may be under more restrictive licenses (CDDL, maybe one of
Sun's many binary licenses). I think that will prevent us from
including a complete (with dependencies) version with a distro
although we should be able to distribute the extension with directions
on which 3rd party libraries a user would need to obtain separately.
--
Jeremy
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
oops! i meant EPL
On 4/26/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jean-Sebastien,
>
> Just checked with Cliff. CDDL jars are ok both for inclusion in our
> SVN and as part of a distribution. So +1 from me.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 4/26/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Jim Marino wrote:
> > > Just a friendly reminder to those working on the core or model to
> > > please include celtix in their refactorings. I accidentally forgot to
> > > check in my refactors (sandbox is separate) and run the checkstyle
> > > tests from celtix/binding.celtix resulting in Dan having a broken demo
> > > :-( Also, someone else modifying the loader forgot to include the
> > > project in their refactors (I fixed it)...
> > >
> > > Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build process. I
> > > would like to due this using lazy consensus with the caveat that the
> > > cut-over be done after the Java One release to avoid disruption and
> > > give people a chance to adjust code gradually. The checkstyle
> > > configuration is fairly rigorous and we will need to divide up the
> > > work to do so by project.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for contributing to the break as well... when I did my latest
> > refactoring I didn't have the Celtix binding included in my workspace
> > either. What do people think about moving the Celtix binding to the
> > main code stream under bindings/? It's getting in a good shape now, and
> > this way we'll all include it in our refactoring, testing, it'll be
> > loaded in our IDEs etc.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Jean-Sebastien,
Just checked with Cliff. CDDL jars are ok both for inclusion in our
SVN and as part of a distribution. So +1 from me.
-- dims
On 4/26/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jim Marino wrote:
> > Just a friendly reminder to those working on the core or model to
> > please include celtix in their refactorings. I accidentally forgot to
> > check in my refactors (sandbox is separate) and run the checkstyle
> > tests from celtix/binding.celtix resulting in Dan having a broken demo
> > :-( Also, someone else modifying the loader forgot to include the
> > project in their refactors (I fixed it)...
> >
> > Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build process. I
> > would like to due this using lazy consensus with the caveat that the
> > cut-over be done after the Java One release to avoid disruption and
> > give people a chance to adjust code gradually. The checkstyle
> > configuration is fairly rigorous and we will need to divide up the
> > work to do so by project.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
> Sorry for contributing to the break as well... when I did my latest
> refactoring I didn't have the Celtix binding included in my workspace
> either. What do people think about moving the Celtix binding to the
> main code stream under bindings/? It's getting in a good shape now, and
> this way we'll all include it in our refactoring, testing, it'll be
> loaded in our IDEs etc.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
+1 Dan submitted a patch with testcases so I think it should go into
the build process with that patch applied. Thanks Dan!
Jim
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Jim Marino wrote:
>
>> Just a friendly reminder to those working on the core or model to
>> please include celtix in their refactorings. I accidentally forgot
>> to check in my refactors (sandbox is separate) and run the
>> checkstyle tests from celtix/binding.celtix resulting in Dan
>> having a broken demo :-( Also, someone else modifying the loader
>> forgot to include the project in their refactors (I fixed it)...
>>
>> Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build
>> process. I would like to due this using lazy consensus with the
>> caveat that the cut-over be done after the Java One release to
>> avoid disruption and give people a chance to adjust code
>> gradually. The checkstyle configuration is fairly rigorous and we
>> will need to divide up the work to do so by project.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
> Sorry for contributing to the break as well... when I did my latest
> refactoring I didn't have the Celtix binding included in my
> workspace either. What do people think about moving the Celtix
> binding to the main code stream under bindings/? It's getting in a
> good shape now, and this way we'll all include it in our
> refactoring, testing, it'll be loaded in our IDEs etc.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
Moving the Celtix binding to the bindings/ directory, was: including
celtix in refactor work and checkstyle
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Jim Marino wrote:
> Just a friendly reminder to those working on the core or model to
> please include celtix in their refactorings. I accidentally forgot to
> check in my refactors (sandbox is separate) and run the checkstyle
> tests from celtix/binding.celtix resulting in Dan having a broken demo
> :-( Also, someone else modifying the loader forgot to include the
> project in their refactors (I fixed it)...
>
> Dan also proposed we adopt checkstyle as part of the build process. I
> would like to due this using lazy consensus with the caveat that the
> cut-over be done after the Java One release to avoid disruption and
> give people a chance to adjust code gradually. The checkstyle
> configuration is fairly rigorous and we will need to divide up the
> work to do so by project.
>
> Jim
>
Sorry for contributing to the break as well... when I did my latest
refactoring I didn't have the Celtix binding included in my workspace
either. What do people think about moving the Celtix binding to the
main code stream under bindings/? It's getting in a good shape now, and
this way we'll all include it in our refactoring, testing, it'll be
loaded in our IDEs etc.
Any thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien