You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to repository@apache.org by Steve Loughran <st...@gmail.com> on 2008/03/18 13:18:01 UTC
too many jaxbs out there
Surely there can't be that many implementations of JAXB:
http://mvnrepository.com/search.html?query=jaxb
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
On Friday 21 March 2008, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> >> I dont know if the license has changed, it didnt allow it when it
> >> was uploaded
> >
> > No, there are a LOT of Sun things (jaxws, jaxb, newer activation,
> > mail, etc...) that are now CDDL and could be put in central. They
> > currently exist at java.net. The main problems are:
> > 1) The sun poms suck
>
> I haven't used them myself, but couldn't we help them with this?
> Which ones are in worst shape?
Umm... All of them? I don't think any of them have any of the extra
information to make them useful for things like remote-resources. They
don't have organization info, they don't have license info, many don't
have dependencies when the probably should, many don't even have a
<name> tag.
I tried to send them a patch about a year ago to update all the poms that
CXF used, but they didn't apply it and they've continued to deploy new
stuff with minimal/crappy poms.
Dan
> > 2) Sun has a tendency to change things after they are released which
> > causes major issues if they were synced to central. The jaxws-api
> > 2.1-1 jar at central is to deal with them doing that.
> >
> > That said, I'm all for getting the java.net stuff into central, but
> > it would require quite a bit of work from someone to get the poms
> > cleaned up, etc....
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
> >>>
> >>> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It
> >>>> still
> >>>>
> >>> > breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
> >>> > recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
> >>> > implementations to a classpath.
> >>>
> >>> Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same
> >>> sort of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the
> >>> Sun Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in
> >>> a webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
> >>>
> >>> > I have one more question. There's no official sun release in
> >>> > there, just stub poms. Does that still hold?
> >>>
> >>> My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have
> >>> it in central. Is this one of the older versions that requires
> >>> clicking on the license?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Wendy
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
you gotta be careful too because although new versions are cddl/gpl
old versions may not, it takes them time to go back and change the
license and in some cases they can't
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > I dont know if the license has changed, it didnt allow it when it was
> > uploaded
>
> No, there are a LOT of Sun things (jaxws, jaxb, newer activation, mail,
> etc...) that are now CDDL and could be put in central. They currently
> exist at java.net. The main problems are:
> 1) The sun poms suck
> 2) Sun has a tendency to change things after they are released which
> causes major issues if they were synced to central. The jaxws-api 2.1-1
> jar at central is to deal with them doing that.
>
> That said, I'm all for getting the java.net stuff into central, but it
> would require quite a bit of work from someone to get the poms cleaned
> up, etc....
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
> > >
> > > <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It
> > > > still
> > > >
> > > > breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
> > > > recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
> > > > implementations to a classpath.
> > >
> > > Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same
> > > sort of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the
> > > Sun Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in a
> > > webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
> > >
> > > > I have one more question. There's no official sun release in
> > > > there, just stub poms. Does that still hold?
> > >
> > > My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have it
> > > in central. Is this one of the older versions that requires
> > > clicking on the license?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wendy
>
>
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>> I dont know if the license has changed, it didnt allow it when it was
>> uploaded
>
> No, there are a LOT of Sun things (jaxws, jaxb, newer activation, mail,
> etc...) that are now CDDL and could be put in central. They currently
> exist at java.net. The main problems are:
> 1) The sun poms suck
I haven't used them myself, but couldn't we help them with this?
Which ones are in worst shape?
> 2) Sun has a tendency to change things after they are released which
> causes major issues if they were synced to central. The jaxws-api 2.1-1
> jar at central is to deal with them doing that.
>
> That said, I'm all for getting the java.net stuff into central, but it
> would require quite a bit of work from someone to get the poms cleaned
> up, etc....
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
>>>
>>> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It
>>>> still
>>>>
>>> > breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
>>> > recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
>>> > implementations to a classpath.
>>>
>>> Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same
>>> sort of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the
>>> Sun Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in a
>>> webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
>>>
>>> > I have one more question. There's no official sun release in
>>> > there, just stub poms. Does that still hold?
>>>
>>> My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have it
>>> in central. Is this one of the older versions that requires
>>> clicking on the license?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wendy
>
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> I dont know if the license has changed, it didnt allow it when it was
> uploaded
No, there are a LOT of Sun things (jaxws, jaxb, newer activation, mail,
etc...) that are now CDDL and could be put in central. They currently
exist at java.net. The main problems are:
1) The sun poms suck
2) Sun has a tendency to change things after they are released which
causes major issues if they were synced to central. The jaxws-api 2.1-1
jar at central is to deal with them doing that.
That said, I'm all for getting the java.net stuff into central, but it
would require quite a bit of work from someone to get the poms cleaned
up, etc....
Dan
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
> >
> > <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It
> > > still
> > >
> > > breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
> > > recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
> > > implementations to a classpath.
> >
> > Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same
> > sort of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the
> > Sun Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in a
> > webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
> >
> > > I have one more question. There's no official sun release in
> > > there, just stub poms. Does that still hold?
> >
> > My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have it
> > in central. Is this one of the older versions that requires
> > clicking on the license?
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I dont know if the license has changed, it didnt allow it when it was uploaded
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
>
> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It still
> > breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
> > recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
> > implementations to a classpath.
>
> Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same sort
> of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the Sun
> Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in a
> webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
>
>
> > I have one more question. There's no official sun release in there,
> > just stub poms. Does that still hold?
>
> My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have it in
> central. Is this one of the older versions that requires clicking on
> the license?
>
> --
> Wendy
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Steve Loughran
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It still
> breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
> recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
> implementations to a classpath.
Maven doesn't currently understand 'implementations'. The same sort
of thing happens with the MyFaces JSF implementation vs. the Sun
Reference Implementation-- Maven will happily include both in a
webapp, because the groupId+artifactId differs.
> I have one more question. There's no official sun release in there,
> just stub poms. Does that still hold?
My guess is that if the license permitted it, we'd already have it in
central. Is this one of the older versions that requires clicking on
the license?
--
Wendy
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> I mean if you do your own build/bug fix release/improved jaxb you
> should be able to redistribute it and it should be from your groupId
well, we need to look at them to see how they vary. Also, It still
breaks transitive classpath inference if there's not
recognition/warning that you're adding multiple different
implementations to a classpath.
I have one more question. There's no official sun release in there,
just stub poms. Does that still hold? If other people can stick theirs
up, can we stick a sun version up now? otherwise, the lack of a sun
library just encourages this diversity, which doesnt really help
anyone ( I know, I'm creating a pom for the typica amazon web services
lib)
-steve
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I mean if you do your own build/bug fix release/improved jaxb you
should be able to redistribute it and it should be from your groupId
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Steve Loughran
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > if a project repackages jaxb and redistributes it under their group it's fine
>
> why is it 'fine'?
>
> 1. there is no official jaxb API/implementation, just the POMs.
> 2. If everyone does their own versions, then the whole dependency
> management is going to be broken.
>
> help me to understand this.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Steve Loughran
> > <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Surely there can't be that many implementations of JAXB:
> > >
> > > http://mvnrepository.com/search.html?query=jaxb
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > -- The Princess Bride
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> if a project repackages jaxb and redistributes it under their group it's fine
why is it 'fine'?
1. there is no official jaxb API/implementation, just the POMs.
2. If everyone does their own versions, then the whole dependency
management is going to be broken.
help me to understand this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Steve Loughran
> <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Surely there can't be that many implementations of JAXB:
> >
> > http://mvnrepository.com/search.html?query=jaxb
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
Re: too many jaxbs out there
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
if a project repackages jaxb and redistributes it under their group it's fine
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Steve Loughran
<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Surely there can't be that many implementations of JAXB:
>
> http://mvnrepository.com/search.html?query=jaxb
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride