You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@archiva.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2007/08/01 11:31:11 UTC
reporting & jasper reports
Hi all,
This is mainly for Deng and Teody as I've seen them working through
the issue for reporting... I took a look at the latest patch and it's
looking pretty good.
I did go to check about the jasper reports license, though, and it
appears from the POM that it is LGPL.
Though it's not official (yet), we shouldn't be distributing it
according to the ASF policy: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/
3party.html#transition
So, I think we have 3 options if we continue to do this:
- put it in a separate module (and profile) that isn't distributed
with continuum, but can be built manually and installed
- require the user to drop jasperreports into WEB-INF/lib (and
gracefully fail if they don't)
- come up with a whiz-bang addon installer that can get them to
confirm the license and grab the jasper stuff from the repository (a
bit much for now :)
I'm thinking 1) is the best way to go, and provide a bland, default
implementation of the reporting pages that doesn't use jasper (just a
spit out a table of everything).
WDYT?
Cheers,
Brett
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by "Teody Cue Jr." <tc...@exist.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is mainly for Deng and Teody as I've seen them working through
> the issue for reporting... I took a look at the latest patch and it's
> looking pretty good.
>
> I did go to check about the jasper reports license, though, and it
> appears from the POM that it is LGPL.
>
> Though it's not official (yet), we shouldn't be distributing it
> according to the ASF policy:
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition
>
> So, I think we have 3 options if we continue to do this:
> - put it in a separate module (and profile) that isn't distributed
> with continuum, but can be built manually and installed
> - require the user to drop jasperreports into WEB-INF/lib (and
> gracefully fail if they don't)
> - come up with a whiz-bang addon installer that can get them to
> confirm the license and grab the jasper stuff from the repository (a
> bit much for now :)
>
> I'm thinking 1) is the best way to go, and provide a bland, default
> implementation of the reporting pages that doesn't use jasper (just a
> spit out a table of everything).
+1 to this. :) Then we can provide a default page with eXtremComponents
for the table.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
Base on the responds to the issue I will implement the following tonight:
-Take out artifact search
-Use a drop down for the repository id
-Put everything on 1 form - this will automatically be using 1 action
and remove the 3 detailed actions on the last patch
-Publish the report on a separate blank page
-Drop the last 3 columns from the report
-Take out version link
-Add unit tests
Thanks,
Teody
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 01/08/2007, at 8:17 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is mainly for Deng and Teody as I've seen them working
>> through the issue for reporting... I took a look at the latest
>> patch and it's looking pretty good.
>>
>> I did go to check about the jasper reports license, though, and it
>> appears from the POM that it is LGPL.
>>
>> Though it's not official (yet), we shouldn't be distributing it
>> according to the ASF policy: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/
>> 3party.html#transition
>>
>> So, I think we have 3 options if we continue to do this:
>> - put it in a separate module (and profile) that isn't distributed
>> with continuum, but can be built manually and installed
>
> I take it this should be archiva not continuum? :)
> anyway, +1 to this!
yup, sorry continuum on the brain trying to set up vmbuild :)
>
>> - require the user to drop jasperreports into WEB-INF/lib (and
>> gracefully fail if they don't)
>> - come up with a whiz-bang addon installer that can get them to
>> confirm the license and grab the jasper stuff from the repository
>> (a bit much for now :)
>>
>> I'm thinking 1) is the best way to go, and provide a bland,
>> default implementation of the reporting pages that doesn't use
>> jasper (just a spit out a table of everything).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>
> Thanks,
> Deng
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Maria Odea Ching <oc...@exist.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is mainly for Deng and Teody as I've seen them working through
> the issue for reporting... I took a look at the latest patch and it's
> looking pretty good.
>
> I did go to check about the jasper reports license, though, and it
> appears from the POM that it is LGPL.
>
> Though it's not official (yet), we shouldn't be distributing it
> according to the ASF policy:
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition
>
> So, I think we have 3 options if we continue to do this:
> - put it in a separate module (and profile) that isn't distributed
> with continuum, but can be built manually and installed
I take it this should be archiva not continuum? :)
anyway, +1 to this!
> - require the user to drop jasperreports into WEB-INF/lib (and
> gracefully fail if they don't)
> - come up with a whiz-bang addon installer that can get them to
> confirm the license and grab the jasper stuff from the repository (a
> bit much for now :)
>
> I'm thinking 1) is the best way to go, and provide a bland, default
> implementation of the reporting pages that doesn't use jasper (just a
> spit out a table of everything).
>
> WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
Thanks,
Deng
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 03/08/2007, at 10:18 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>
> That translation (explanation?) is *far* easier to understand than
> the URL you pointed to.
heh, lawyers :) Glad I'm useful for something!
>
>> Teody said on this thread yesterday that he was working on updates
>> based on the feedback Deng had given in the issue, so if that
>> patch looks ok too and gets applied, we'll then need to deal with
>> this before we can move forward with the release next week.
>
> The current set of patches are already applied.
> We'll have to kinda/sorta undo them.
I haven't looked at the submitted patch - but yeah if it's not based
on an svn up it might need to be rolled back first. No big deal.
I was going to take a look after completing MRM-430 tonight, but if
you want to run with it feel free!
Cheers,
Brett
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Joakim Erdfelt <jo...@erdfelt.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
> On 03/08/2007, at 3:23 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>> And with the dozen or so licenses in use by ant and maven, how and
>> why is this suddenly important to archiva, but not the other projects?
>>
>> In maven and ant we have jgpl'd and oddball licenses such as ...
>> checkstyle, clover, netrexx, jruby, judo, jython, javamail,
>> activation, and jai.
>
> The key point is distribution. Ant does not distribute any of these.
> Maven is in a grey area, where it downloads them (so is compliant),
> but does so automatically (which makes it a few shades of grey given
> it's a policy aimed at "no surprises" licensing). There's no doubt it
> can be improved. Also a factor is that a lot of these predate the
> policy, and the policy has a transition period which is what I linked to.
>
> But Archiva is doing this for the first time, in awareness of the
> policy, and as it stands would have to distribute the JAR - so I think
> we need to take it into consideration. Discussions about the policy
> itself belong on legal-discuss - we should just deal with the best way
> to apply it.
>
> So far others have agreed with the approach outlined using a profile -
> do you have any other issues with doing that?
That translation (explanation?) is *far* easier to understand than the
URL you pointed to.
> Teody said on this thread yesterday that he was working on updates
> based on the feedback Deng had given in the issue, so if that patch
> looks ok too and gets applied, we'll then need to deal with this
> before we can move forward with the release next week.
The current set of patches are already applied.
We'll have to kinda/sorta undo them.
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
joakim@erdfelt.com
Open Source Software (OSS) Developer
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 03/08/2007, at 3:23 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> While I understand the need to be vigilant on licenses in use.
> I don't understand why LGPL is excluded.
>
> And that URL you pointed to seems to makes a distinction only on
> using LGPLed code.
"The following licenses must not apply to any software within an
Apache product, whether in source or binary form" (from Software
License Criteria and Categories > Category X).
>
> And with the dozen or so licenses in use by ant and maven, how and
> why is this suddenly important to archiva, but not the other projects?
>
> In maven and ant we have jgpl'd and oddball licenses such as ...
> checkstyle, clover, netrexx, jruby, judo, jython, javamail,
> activation, and jai.
The key point is distribution. Ant does not distribute any of these.
Maven is in a grey area, where it downloads them (so is compliant),
but does so automatically (which makes it a few shades of grey given
it's a policy aimed at "no surprises" licensing). There's no doubt it
can be improved. Also a factor is that a lot of these predate the
policy, and the policy has a transition period which is what I linked
to.
But Archiva is doing this for the first time, in awareness of the
policy, and as it stands would have to distribute the JAR - so I
think we need to take it into consideration. Discussions about the
policy itself belong on legal-discuss - we should just deal with the
best way to apply it.
So far others have agreed with the approach outlined using a profile
- do you have any other issues with doing that?
Teody said on this thread yesterday that he was working on updates
based on the feedback Deng had given in the issue, so if that patch
looks ok too and gets applied, we'll then need to deal with this
before we can move forward with the release next week.
Cheers,
Brett
Re: reporting & jasper reports
Posted by Joakim Erdfelt <jo...@erdfelt.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is mainly for Deng and Teody as I've seen them working through
> the issue for reporting... I took a look at the latest patch and it's
> looking pretty good.
>
> I did go to check about the jasper reports license, though, and it
> appears from the POM that it is LGPL.
>
> Though it's not official (yet), we shouldn't be distributing it
> according to the ASF policy:
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition
>
> So, I think we have 3 options if we continue to do this:
> - put it in a separate module (and profile) that isn't distributed
> with continuum, but can be built manually and installed
> - require the user to drop jasperreports into WEB-INF/lib (and
> gracefully fail if they don't)
> - come up with a whiz-bang addon installer that can get them to
> confirm the license and grab the jasper stuff from the repository (a
> bit much for now :)
>
> I'm thinking 1) is the best way to go, and provide a bland, default
> implementation of the reporting pages that doesn't use jasper (just a
> spit out a table of everything).
>
> WDYT?
While I understand the need to be vigilant on licenses in use.
I don't understand why LGPL is excluded.
And that URL you pointed to seems to makes a distinction only on using
LGPLed code.
And with the dozen or so licenses in use by ant and maven, how and why
is this suddenly important to archiva, but not the other projects?
In maven and ant we have jgpl'd and oddball licenses such as ...
checkstyle, clover, netrexx, jruby, judo, jython, javamail, activation,
and jai.
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
joakim@erdfelt.com
Open Source Software (OSS) Developer