Mojarra and us...

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the 
status of Mojarra and our codebase.

As far as I understood it is following.
The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can 
use ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.

The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have 
an occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to 
prevent external patches being applied which might have mojarra code 
inside (we had that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the 
spec or mojarra)

Am I right or wrong?

I am just asking to clear this up once and for all.




Werner

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to explain, I noticed that we probably need a special response writer
> impl which tries to determine script blocks the way
> Trinidad does it to send the scripts as separate entities in the ppr
> response. I wanted to check if Mojarra already had something along those

there is a user/dev list for mojarra, right ?

> lines implemented and if not, wanted to send them a bug notification,
> because this is the standard way to handle inline scripts over the component
> api. (startTag("script usually should trigger a deferred
> writing of the next responseWriter commands, in a special eval section)
>
> So before doing this I want to clear this up once and for all!
> As I said I am not eager to touch mojarra code in this regard, but I
> personally would prefer to be in sync in both implementations in such corner
> areas partially not covered by the spec!

IMO this is critical;

-M

>
>
>
> Werner
>
>
> Werner Punz schrieb:
>>
>> Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the
>> status of Mojarra and our codebase.
>>
>> As far as I understood it is following.
>> The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can use
>> ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.
>>
>> The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have an
>> occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
>> are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to prevent
>> external patches being applied which might have mojarra code inside (we had
>> that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the spec or mojarra)
>>
>> Am I right or wrong?
>>
>> I am just asking to clear this up once and for all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

I have to explain, I noticed that we probably need a special response 
writer impl which tries to determine script blocks the way
Trinidad does it to send the scripts as separate entities in the ppr 
response. I wanted to check if Mojarra already had something along those 
lines implemented and if not, wanted to send them a bug notification, 
because this is the standard way to handle inline scripts over the 
component api. (startTag("script usually should trigger a deferred
writing of the next responseWriter commands, in a special eval section)

So before doing this I want to clear this up once and for all!
As I said I am not eager to touch mojarra code in this regard, but I 
personally would prefer to be in sync in both implementations in such 
corner areas partially not covered by the spec!



Werner


Werner Punz schrieb:
> Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the 
> status of Mojarra and our codebase.
> 
> As far as I understood it is following.
> The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can 
> use ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.
> 
> The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have 
> an occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
> are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to 
> prevent external patches being applied which might have mojarra code 
> inside (we had that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the 
> spec or mojarra)
> 
> Am I right or wrong?
> 
> I am just asking to clear this up once and for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Werner
> 
> 
> 

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>]

Hi,

At least for the AJAX part I can tell that many details are treated as 
implementation details, so the spec purposely leaves them open. On some 
details in the jsdocs Roger has even relaxed the wording of the spec to 
leave the details to the impl. If we muddle through the specs and do it 
our way the MyFaces AJAX and the Mojarra AJAX won't have compatible XML 
interfaces (syntactically, yes, but not sematically). This would be bad 
in two ways:
1. The way things have been going until now the spec will further evolve 
to match the behaviour of Mojarra. They have all right to try out new 
features in their impl before writing them into the spec, but it seems 
wise to stay close.
2. If the MyFaces Javascript doesn't work with the Mojarra server, the 
t:ajax tag (I'm working on it ...) wouldn't run with Mojarra.

Here is how I've been treating this: By testing with Mojarra I've 
checked their implementation's behaviour if I wasn't sure how to 
interpret the specs. Just running it and checking a test apps behaviour 
as well as the transferred XML stream for serveral corner cases 
definitely doesn't break any license. I don't think reading their code 
is a helpful idea - we'd just repeat the same errors they have made and 
aren't we convinced to know it better? ;-)

Best regards,
Ganesh

Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> isn't the behavior *clear* defined in the spec ?
> If so, go the route;
> If not, ask the EG on the why ;-)
>
> -Matthias
>   

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the
>>> status of Mojarra and our codebase.
>>>
>>> As far as I understood it is following.
>>> The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can use
>>> ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.
>>
>> +1
>> (OT *and* a side-info: OpenJDK is using Apache Harmony code :-) )
>>
>>> The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have an
>>> occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
>>> are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to prevent
>>> external patches being applied which might have mojarra code inside (we
>>> had
>>> that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the spec or mojarra)
>>>
>>> Am I right or wrong?
>>
>> not sure on the legal side, but I find it *is* critical to take a look
>> at such a code
>> base.
>>
>
> This is the question, not looking against the other codebase might introduce
> incompatibilities or errors might be overlooked,
> just like I pointed out in the example before,
> or even worse, external patches could go into the codebase which come
> straight from the mojarra codebase!

isn't the behavior *clear* defined in the spec ?
If so, go the route;
If not, ask the EG on the why ;-)

-Matthias

>
>
> As far as I can see the way the bsd and linux guys handle it is that linux
> freely takes BSD code why the BSD guys dont have a problem looking at the
> linux codebase, but they never ever would copy any code from the linux side.
>
>
>
> Werner
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the
>> status of Mojarra and our codebase.
>>
>> As far as I understood it is following.
>> The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can use
>> ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.
> 
> +1
> (OT *and* a side-info: OpenJDK is using Apache Harmony code :-) )
> 
>> The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have an
>> occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
>> are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to prevent
>> external patches being applied which might have mojarra code inside (we had
>> that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the spec or mojarra)
>>
>> Am I right or wrong?
> 
> not sure on the legal side, but I find it *is* critical to take a look
> at such a code
> base.
> 

This is the question, not looking against the other codebase might 
introduce incompatibilities or errors might be overlooked,
just like I pointed out in the example before,
or even worse, external patches could go into the codebase which come 
straight from the mojarra codebase!


As far as I can see the way the bsd and linux guys handle it is that 
linux freely takes BSD code why the BSD guys dont have a problem looking 
at the linux codebase, but they never ever would copy any code from the 
linux side.



Werner

Re: Mojarra and us...

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone I wanted to start a legal discussion here regarding the
> status of Mojarra and our codebase.
>
> As far as I understood it is following.
> The mojarra license prevents us from using their code, while they can use
> ours, this is fine with me the Apache license is more liberal.

+1
(OT *and* a side-info: OpenJDK is using Apache Harmony code :-) )

>
> The Mojarra and Apache license however do not prevent that we can have an
> occasional look into the mojarra codebase to check things out which
> are not 100% clearly defined, so that we are in sync there, or to prevent
> external patches being applied which might have mojarra code inside (we had
> that once in the past with comments copy pasted from the spec or mojarra)
>
> Am I right or wrong?

not sure on the legal side, but I find it *is* critical to take a look
at such a code
base.

-Matthias

>
> I am just asking to clear this up once and for all.
>
>
>
>
> Werner
>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf