You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> on 2013/03/12 11:15:42 UTC
[fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Hi all guys,
due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
about:
* verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
* review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
Many thanks in advance, all the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut Luc!
thanks a lot for supervising, much more than appreciated! :)
>
> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>
I think we already discussed it in the past and, while it is true that
notes in NOTICE are missing, it is also true that redistributing 3rd
parties require be enlisted in the LICENSE file with the relative
license, see how Seb helped me in the past with the Digester[1]
> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
> under
> the terms of CDDL license.
Agreed! :)
> Looking at
> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
> the requirements.
>
that is worrying - even if I haven't changed a single line of the
original code, but included the binaries and relocated 'em via the
shade-plugin,
> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
> should *remove* this code from
> our repository.
Fortunately there's no CDDL code in the repo, there's just the
shade-plugin instruction to relocate javax.mail classes.
BTW, Felix raised a serious OSGi problem which suggested me to looking
for alternatives. I am contacting legal@ anyway for more
clarifications.
Have a nice day, all the best!
-Simo
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/dist/src/main/assembly/LICENSE-with-deps.txt
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all guys,
>
>
> Hi Simone,
>
>
>>
>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>> about:
>>
>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>
>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>
>
> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>
> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
> under
> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
> the requirements.
>
> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
> should *remove* this code from
> our repository.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
>>
>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
Am 15.03.2013 um 11:25 schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> Hi Felix!
>
>> Sorry, for still some nitpicking: the .util.mime package is now exported and thus (in OSGi view) part of the FileUpload API. Considering that the regulary library has no way of declaring some packages to *not* be API, that is acceptable. Correct ?
>
> thanks for pointing! I just overridden the commons.osgi.export
> property in the pom to exclude the .mime package, see r1456862:
>
> <commons.osgi.export>!org.apache.commons.fileupload.util.mime,org.apache.commons.*;version=${project.version};-noimport:=true</commons.osgi.export>
>
> IMHO the whole .util package should be excluded, but previous releases
> of commons-fileupload already export it, so I'm for keeping it in the
> export... WDYT?
I agree, we should keep it for backwards compatibility ...
Regards
Felix
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedbacks!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Felix!
> Sorry, for still some nitpicking: the .util.mime package is now exported and thus (in OSGi view) part of the FileUpload API. Considering that the regulary library has no way of declaring some packages to *not* be API, that is acceptable. Correct ?
thanks for pointing! I just overridden the commons.osgi.export
property in the pom to exclude the .mime package, see r1456862:
<commons.osgi.export>!org.apache.commons.fileupload.util.mime,org.apache.commons.*;version=${project.version};-noimport:=true</commons.osgi.export>
IMHO the whole .util package should be excluded, but previous releases
of commons-fileupload already export it, so I'm for keeping it in the
export... WDYT?
Thanks a lot for the feedbacks!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simo
Thanks, looks clean from an OSGi POV.
Sorry, for still some nitpicking: the .util.mime package is now exported and thus (in OSGi view) part of the FileUpload API. Considering that the regulary library has no way of declaring some packages to *not* be API, that is acceptable. Correct ?
Regards
Felix
Am 14.03.2013 um 17:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> Salut Luc/all,
>
> I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
> Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
> I retailed the original classes in order to drop unneeded stuff and
> have a pure MIME decoder.
>
> Do you have any feedback? What is the legal procedure to mention that
> those classes have been stripped from Geronimo?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>> Hi again Luc/all,
>>>
>>> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
>>> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
>>> importing and adapting their source code, right?
>>
>> Sure. It's much better this way.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>>
>>> TIA!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
>>>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Simone,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>>>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>>>>> about:
>>>>>
>>>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>>>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>>>>
>>>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>>>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
>>>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
>>>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
>>>> under
>>>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
>>>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
>>>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
>>>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
>>>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
>>>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
>>>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
>>>> the requirements.
>>>>
>>>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
>>>> should *remove* this code from
>>>> our repository.
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>>>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>>>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>>>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>>>>> -Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
There seems to be nothing unusual contained in [1], so I don't know that
anything further is necessary in [fileupload]'s NOTICE file.
$0.02,
Matt
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec/NOTICE?view=markup
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi Matt!!!
>
> do you have any template sentence to put in the NOTICE, to suggest me?
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You might check the NOTICE file in the project whence they came.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simone Tripodi
> > <si...@apache.org>wrote:
> >
> >> Salut Luc/all,
> >>
> >> I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
> >> Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
> >> I retailed the original classes in order to drop unneeded stuff and
> >> have a pure MIME decoder.
> >>
> >> Do you have any feedback? What is the legal procedure to mention that
> >> those classes have been stripped from Geronimo?
> >>
> >> Many thanks in advance!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> >> >> Hi again Luc/all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
> >> >> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
> >> >> importing and adapting their source code, right?
> >> >
> >> > Sure. It's much better this way.
> >> >
> >> > Luc
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA!
> >> >> -Simo
> >> >>
> >> >> [1]
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
> >> >>
> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
> >> >>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi all guys,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Simone,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package
> to
> >> >>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of
> feedbacks
> >> >>>> about:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of
> you
> >> >>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to
> clarify
> >> >>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The
> >> classes
> >> >>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> >> >>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we
> got
> >> it
> >> >>> under
> >> >>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
> >> >>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> >> >>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For
> small
> >> >>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at
> >> runtime in
> >> >>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed
> anyway
> >> >>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> >> >>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we
> >> fulfill
> >> >>> the requirements.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their
> advice,
> >> you
> >> >>> should *remove* this code from
> >> >>> our repository.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> best regards,
> >> >>> Luc
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
> >> >>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
> >> >>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
> >> >>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
> >> >>>> -Simo
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Matt!!!
do you have any template sentence to put in the NOTICE, to suggest me?
TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You might check the NOTICE file in the project whence they came.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simone Tripodi
> <si...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Salut Luc/all,
>>
>> I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
>> Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
>> I retailed the original classes in order to drop unneeded stuff and
>> have a pure MIME decoder.
>>
>> Do you have any feedback? What is the legal procedure to mention that
>> those classes have been stripped from Geronimo?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>
>> wrote:
>> > Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>> >> Hi again Luc/all,
>> >>
>> >> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
>> >> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
>> >> importing and adapting their source code, right?
>> >
>> > Sure. It's much better this way.
>> >
>> > Luc
>> >
>> >>
>> >> TIA!
>> >> -Simo
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
>> >>
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> http://www.99soft.org/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
>> >>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi all guys,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Simone,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>> >>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>> >>>> about:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>> >>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>> >>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The
>> classes
>> >>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
>> >>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got
>> it
>> >>> under
>> >>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
>> >>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
>> >>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
>> >>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at
>> runtime in
>> >>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
>> >>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
>> >>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we
>> fulfill
>> >>> the requirements.
>> >>>
>> >>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice,
>> you
>> >>> should *remove* this code from
>> >>> our repository.
>> >>>
>> >>> best regards,
>> >>> Luc
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>> >>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>> >>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>> >>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>> >>>> -Simo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
You might check the NOTICE file in the project whence they came.
Matt
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@apache.org>wrote:
> Salut Luc/all,
>
> I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
> Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
> I retailed the original classes in order to drop unneeded stuff and
> have a pure MIME decoder.
>
> Do you have any feedback? What is the legal procedure to mention that
> those classes have been stripped from Geronimo?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>
> wrote:
> > Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> >> Hi again Luc/all,
> >>
> >> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
> >> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
> >> importing and adapting their source code, right?
> >
> > Sure. It's much better this way.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> >>
> >> TIA!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> [1]
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
> >>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all guys,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Simone,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
> >>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
> >>>> about:
> >>>>
> >>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
> >>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
> >>>>
> >>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
> >>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The
> classes
> >>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> >>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got
> it
> >>> under
> >>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
> >>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> >>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
> >>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at
> runtime in
> >>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
> >>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> >>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we
> fulfill
> >>> the requirements.
> >>>
> >>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice,
> you
> >>> should *remove* this code from
> >>> our repository.
> >>>
> >>> best regards,
> >>> Luc
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
> >>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
> >>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
> >>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
> >>>> -Simo
> >>>>
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut Luc/all,
I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
I retailed the original classes in order to drop unneeded stuff and
have a pure MIME decoder.
Do you have any feedback? What is the legal procedure to mention that
those classes have been stripped from Geronimo?
Many thanks in advance!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>> Hi again Luc/all,
>>
>> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
>> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
>> importing and adapting their source code, right?
>
> Sure. It's much better this way.
>
> Luc
>
>>
>> TIA!
>> -Simo
>>
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
>>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Simone,
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>>>> about:
>>>>
>>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>>>
>>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>>>
>>>
>>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
>>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
>>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
>>> under
>>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
>>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
>>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
>>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
>>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
>>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
>>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
>>> the requirements.
>>>
>>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
>>> should *remove* this code from
>>> our repository.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>>>> -Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 13/03/2013 16:46, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> Hi again Luc/all,
>
> I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
> version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
> importing and adapting their source code, right?
Sure. It's much better this way.
Luc
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
>> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi all guys,
>>
>>
>> Hi Simone,
>>
>>
>>>
>>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>>> about:
>>>
>>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>>
>>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>>
>>
>> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
>> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
>> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
>> under
>> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
>> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
>> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
>> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
>> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
>> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
>> the requirements.
>>
>> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
>> should *remove* this code from
>> our repository.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Luc
>>
>>>
>>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>>
>>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi again Luc/all,
I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
importing and adapting their source code, right?
TIA!
-Simo
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <lu...@spaceroots.org> wrote:
> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all guys,
>
>
> Hi Simone,
>
>
>>
>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>> about:
>>
>> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>
>> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>
>
> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>
> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
> under
> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
> the requirements.
>
> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
> should *remove* this code from
> our repository.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
>>
>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by luc <lu...@spaceroots.org>.
Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
> Hi all guys,
Hi Simone,
>
> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
> about:
>
> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>
> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The
classes
are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got
it under
the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at
runtime in source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be
changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this
action is sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure
we fulfill the requirements.
You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice,
you should *remove* this code from
our repository.
best regards,
Luc
>
> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>
> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 13/03/2013 08:30, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Simo,
>
> Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi Felix!
>>
>>> While it looks like the new packages are not exported (which is good), I
>>> now get an import on javax.mail.internet. I don't think this makes sense.
>>>
>>
>> the javax.mail.internet import is at source level only, once the
>> shade-plugin has done its job, the import becomes
>> o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail and indeed at OSGi level it must not
>> be exported
>>
>>> Also the embedded MimeUtility class has refernces to the
>>> com.sun.mail.util and javax.activation packages. I am not sure, how this
>>> behaves in an OSGi container.
>>
>> OH I see, that's a huge problem for OSGi purposes - I think I have to
>> find a better solution in order to have it fixed....
>
> Why do we have to shade here anything at all? fileupload is meant to run in
> a JEE environment and javax.mail is then provided. What is now different
> with java.xmail compared to the javax.portlet dependency?
Fileupload can be used on a pure servlet container (like Tomcat or
Jetty) where javax.mail is not available by default.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Guten Morgen Jörg!
> Why do we have to shade here anything at all? fileupload is meant to run in
> a JEE environment and javax.mail is then provided.
I see your point, thanks! The reason why I thought shading those 2
classes was a good ideas is because today users are able to use
FileUpload even outside the JEE container, providing their
FileUploadBase extension implementation, that is why I wanted to
reduce the number of JEE dependencies
> What is now different
> with java.xmail compared to the javax.portlet dependency?
javax.servlet and javax.portlet are not part of the core fileupload
foundation, while javax.mail would be.
Do you know if there's a MimeUtils alternative?
TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Jörg Schaible <Jo...@scalaris.com>.
Hi Simo,
Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Felix!
>
>> While it looks like the new packages are not exported (which is good), I
>> now get an import on javax.mail.internet. I don't think this makes sense.
>>
>
> the javax.mail.internet import is at source level only, once the
> shade-plugin has done its job, the import becomes
> o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail and indeed at OSGi level it must not
> be exported
>
>> Also the embedded MimeUtility class has refernces to the
>> com.sun.mail.util and javax.activation packages. I am not sure, how this
>> behaves in an OSGi container.
>
> OH I see, that's a huge problem for OSGi purposes - I think I have to
> find a better solution in order to have it fixed....
Why do we have to shade here anything at all? fileupload is meant to run in
a JEE environment and javax.mail is then provided. What is now different
with java.xmail compared to the javax.portlet dependency?
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Felix!
> While it looks like the new packages are not exported (which is good), I now get an import on javax.mail.internet. I don't think this makes sense.
>
the javax.mail.internet import is at source level only, once the
shade-plugin has done its job, the import becomes
o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail and indeed at OSGi level it must not
be exported
> Also the embedded MimeUtility class has refernces to the com.sun.mail.util and javax.activation packages. I am not sure, how this behaves in an OSGi container.
OH I see, that's a huge problem for OSGi purposes - I think I have to
find a better solution in order to have it fixed....
Thanks a lot for supervising!
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
Am 12.03.2013 um 11:15 schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> Hi all guys,
>
> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
> about:
>
> * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>
> * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>
> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
While it looks like the new packages are not exported (which is good), I now get an import on javax.mail.internet. I don't think this makes sense.
Also the embedded MimeUtility class has refernces to the com.sun.mail.util and javax.activation packages. I am not sure, how this behaves in an OSGi container.
Regards
Felix
>
> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
Felix Meschberger | Principal Scientist | Adobe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org