components dependencies

[Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>]

This is sort of related to the earlier email I sent out about the 
snapshot dependencies.  In looking at the dependencies of the 
subprojects in the geronimo components tree, I find what appear to be a 
few problems we should probably correct:

geronimo-schema-javaee_6:  This is ok as it stands, but should we move 
the latest verions of the java 1.4 and java 5 schemas into the 
components tree rather than leaving them in the restricted TCK tree?

geronimo-jaspi:  This is building with the 2.1 version of the jaxb specs 
and the older release of the stax api spec.  It also has dependencies on 
non-bundle versions of sxc-jaxb, woodstox, and the jaxb-impl.  The 
jaxb-impl is also at the 2.1.7 level rather than the 2.2 level used by 
the server.  This is a fairly simple update, but would have dependencies 
on geronimo bundles components, which really suggests those should be 
moved out of the server tree as separately buildable components.  I 
suspect it would make the bootstrapping process easier if they could be 
handled that way.  On the downside, this creates another level of 
release artifacts that require voting and a release process.

   geronimo-jaspi-openid:  Building with the older version of the jaspic 
spec jar and servlet 2.5 spec.  Should this be using the java ee 6 api 
versions?  This is also using the 1.0-SNAPSHOT version of the 
geronimo-jaspic build, rather than the current 1.1-SNAPSHOT version.

geronimo-connector/geronimo-transaction:  The connector 1.6 spec version 
is the 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT.  This should be updated to the latest spec 
snapshot.

Thoughts on updating this?  The issue of the use of the geronimo bundles 
probably needs to be resolved ASAP so we can get release votes out for 
those components in the very near future.

Rick

Re: components dependencies

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

On Apr 5, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:

> This is sort of related to the earlier email I sent out about the snapshot dependencies.  In looking at the dependencies of the subprojects in the geronimo components tree, I find what appear to be a few problems we should probably correct:
> 
> geronimo-schema-javaee_6:  This is ok as it stands, but should we move the latest verions of the java 1.4 and java 5 schemas into the components tree rather than leaving them in the restricted TCK tree?
> 
> geronimo-jaspi:  This is building with the 2.1 version of the jaxb specs and the older release of the stax api spec.  It also has dependencies on non-bundle versions of sxc-jaxb, woodstox, and the jaxb-impl.  The jaxb-impl is also at the 2.1.7 level rather than the 2.2 level used by the server.  This is a fairly simple update, but would have dependencies on geronimo bundles components, which really suggests those should be moved out of the server tree as separately buildable components.  I suspect it would make the bootstrapping process easier if they could be handled that way.  On the downside, this creates another level of release artifacts that require voting and a release process.
> 
>  geronimo-jaspi-openid:  Building with the older version of the jaspic spec jar and servlet 2.5 spec.  Should this be using the java ee 6 api versions?  This is also using the 1.0-SNAPSHOT version of the geronimo-jaspic build, rather than the current 1.1-SNAPSHOT version.

I'm not sure we want to push the jaspi support into java 6 and the latest apis as it might inhibit people using it with java 5 projects.  I don't feel too strongly about it though.

david jencks
> 
> geronimo-connector/geronimo-transaction:  The connector 1.6 spec version is the 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT.  This should be updated to the latest spec snapshot.
> 
> Thoughts on updating this?  The issue of the use of the geronimo bundles probably needs to be resolved ASAP so we can get release votes out for those components in the very near future.
> 
> Rick

Re: components dependencies

[Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/2010 10:02 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
>    
>> For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the past, and Donald gave me some suggestions to refer to the OpenJPA project.  I do update them from my understanding. But ... Anyway, if we are OK with the current descriptions, I would move 1.4 and 1.5 out as soon as possible.
>>      
> IIRC, I took a quick look at the ee6 schema license/notice files and they looked good. Would definitely re-review prior to release.
>
> Are we going to/do we need to release 1.4 and 1.5 schema's? Originally the 1.4 and 1.5 schemas had license restrictions which prohibited us including in our svn. If all xsd's have been fixed, then we can move them out. It would be good to do this, but if we don't need to re-release them, it's not absolutely imperative, IMO.
>
> --kevan
>    
We needed to update these to get the osgi package imports/exports sorted 
out, so we definitely need to re-released them.  I'm not sure if the 
xsd's have been changed nor not.

Rick

Re: components dependencies

[Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Kevan. I am afraid that we may still need to release an OSGI style
1.4 and 1.5 for Geronimo 3.0.

2010/4/5 Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>

>
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
> > For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could
> double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the
> geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the
> past, and Donald gave me some suggestions to refer to the OpenJPA project.
>  I do update them from my understanding. But ... Anyway, if we are OK with
> the current descriptions, I would move 1.4 and 1.5 out as soon as possible.
>
> IIRC, I took a quick look at the ee6 schema license/notice files and they
> looked good. Would definitely re-review prior to release.
>
> Are we going to/do we need to release 1.4 and 1.5 schema's? Originally the
> 1.4 and 1.5 schemas had license restrictions which prohibited us including
> in our svn. If all xsd's have been fixed, then we can move them out. It
> would be good to do this, but if we don't need to re-release them, it's not
> absolutely imperative, IMO.
>
> --kevan




-- 
Ivan

Re: components dependencies

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote:

> For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the past, and Donald gave me some suggestions to refer to the OpenJPA project.  I do update them from my understanding. But ... Anyway, if we are OK with the current descriptions, I would move 1.4 and 1.5 out as soon as possible.

IIRC, I took a quick look at the ee6 schema license/notice files and they looked good. Would definitely re-review prior to release.

Are we going to/do we need to release 1.4 and 1.5 schema's? Originally the 1.4 and 1.5 schemas had license restrictions which prohibited us including in our svn. If all xsd's have been fixed, then we can move them out. It would be good to do this, but if we don't need to re-release them, it's not absolutely imperative, IMO.

--kevan

Re: components dependencies

[Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>]

For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could
double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the
geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the
past, and Donald gave me some suggestions to refer to the OpenJPA project.
I do update them from my understanding. But ... Anyway, if we are OK with
the current descriptions, I would move 1.4 and 1.5 out as soon as possible.

2010/4/5 Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>

> This is sort of related to the earlier email I sent out about the snapshot
> dependencies.  In looking at the dependencies of the subprojects in the
> geronimo components tree, I find what appear to be a few problems we should
> probably correct:
>
> geronimo-schema-javaee_6:  This is ok as it stands, but should we move the
> latest verions of the java 1.4 and java 5 schemas into the components tree
> rather than leaving them in the restricted TCK tree?
>
> geronimo-jaspi:  This is building with the 2.1 version of the jaxb specs
> and the older release of the stax api spec.  It also has dependencies on
> non-bundle versions of sxc-jaxb, woodstox, and the jaxb-impl.  The jaxb-impl
> is also at the 2.1.7 level rather than the 2.2 level used by the server.
>  This is a fairly simple update, but would have dependencies on geronimo
> bundles components, which really suggests those should be moved out of the
> server tree as separately buildable components.  I suspect it would make the
> bootstrapping process easier if they could be handled that way.  On the
> downside, this creates another level of release artifacts that require
> voting and a release process.
>
>  geronimo-jaspi-openid:  Building with the older version of the jaspic spec
> jar and servlet 2.5 spec.  Should this be using the java ee 6 api versions?
>  This is also using the 1.0-SNAPSHOT version of the geronimo-jaspic build,
> rather than the current 1.1-SNAPSHOT version.
>
> geronimo-connector/geronimo-transaction:  The connector 1.6 spec version is
> the 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT.  This should be updated to the latest spec snapshot.
>
> Thoughts on updating this?  The issue of the use of the geronimo bundles
> probably needs to be resolved ASAP so we can get release votes out for those
> components in the very near future.
>
> Rick
>



-- 
Ivan