The use of CDDL dependencies

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

All,

I wanted to bring up the topic of the use of CDDL based dependencies within
Usergrid.

If I look at the dependency list, I see that there are a lot of Apache
licensed dependencies and most of which come from ASF.  There are two major
frameworks that caused an issue recently - Grizzly and Jersey.  These two
are CDDL 1.1 compatible licensed, which fall under Category B from an
Apache standpoint.

There are a couple of issues I see with them.

- There are Apache compatible licensed equivalents out there that do the
same thing.
- Using CDDL licensed libraries cause an issue with derived works on
projects, which I don't think we've fully listed out (not an issue yet,
since we haven't created a binary release).
- One of the goals in incubation is to build synergy between projects, and
the more of other projects we use the more synergy we have with others.

I guess my first question/proposal is instead of Grizzly, any chance we can
use Tomcat embedded to do the same thing?  This seems to mostly affect the
launcher component that needs an embedded container; and the standalone
component for the same thing.

The next part is whether or not we need Jersey or can leverage something
else.  My first thought is JBoss Resteasy, which has a test framework that
can be leveraged similar to what was just built against Jersey.  I also
thought about CXF, it is a possible solution however it seemed like its
test tools weren't as good.

As you have likely seen from this last 1.0.1 release, using Cat B/Cat X
type dependencies can lead to problems creating releases, which I'm sure
all of us want to be much smoother.

John

Re: The use of CDDL dependencies

[Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>]

I agreed with Ed.  We're in process of replacing Grizzly with Tomcat for
our tests and for the standalone in 2.0. However Jersey is a major
component of our stack.  We're going to be upgrading it to the latest
version sometime in the next couple of months, so we'll take that time to
look at other options.

On Mon Jan 12 2015 at 7:24:26 PM Ed Anuff <ed...@anuff.com> wrote:

> I don't think there's a lot of commitment to Grizzly vs Tomcat except for
> expediency and all of the production use of Usergrid that I'm aware of uses
> Tomcat, so it's just a case of using it within the test harnesses and the
> launcher.  I think switching from Jersey might be a little more difficult.
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I wanted to bring up the topic of the use of CDDL based dependencies
> within
> > Usergrid.
> >
> > If I look at the dependency list, I see that there are a lot of Apache
> > licensed dependencies and most of which come from ASF.  There are two
> major
> > frameworks that caused an issue recently - Grizzly and Jersey.  These two
> > are CDDL 1.1 compatible licensed, which fall under Category B from an
> > Apache standpoint.
> >
> > There are a couple of issues I see with them.
> >
> > - There are Apache compatible licensed equivalents out there that do the
> > same thing.
> > - Using CDDL licensed libraries cause an issue with derived works on
> > projects, which I don't think we've fully listed out (not an issue yet,
> > since we haven't created a binary release).
> > - One of the goals in incubation is to build synergy between projects,
> and
> > the more of other projects we use the more synergy we have with others.
> >
> > I guess my first question/proposal is instead of Grizzly, any chance we
> can
> > use Tomcat embedded to do the same thing?  This seems to mostly affect
> the
> > launcher component that needs an embedded container; and the standalone
> > component for the same thing.
> >
> > The next part is whether or not we need Jersey or can leverage something
> > else.  My first thought is JBoss Resteasy, which has a test framework
> that
> > can be leveraged similar to what was just built against Jersey.  I also
> > thought about CXF, it is a possible solution however it seemed like its
> > test tools weren't as good.
> >
> > As you have likely seen from this last 1.0.1 release, using Cat B/Cat X
> > type dependencies can lead to problems creating releases, which I'm sure
> > all of us want to be much smoother.
> >
> > John
> >
>

Re: The use of CDDL dependencies

[Ed Anuff <ed...@anuff.com>]

I don't think there's a lot of commitment to Grizzly vs Tomcat except for
expediency and all of the production use of Usergrid that I'm aware of uses
Tomcat, so it's just a case of using it within the test harnesses and the
launcher.  I think switching from Jersey might be a little more difficult.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:

> All,
>
> I wanted to bring up the topic of the use of CDDL based dependencies within
> Usergrid.
>
> If I look at the dependency list, I see that there are a lot of Apache
> licensed dependencies and most of which come from ASF.  There are two major
> frameworks that caused an issue recently - Grizzly and Jersey.  These two
> are CDDL 1.1 compatible licensed, which fall under Category B from an
> Apache standpoint.
>
> There are a couple of issues I see with them.
>
> - There are Apache compatible licensed equivalents out there that do the
> same thing.
> - Using CDDL licensed libraries cause an issue with derived works on
> projects, which I don't think we've fully listed out (not an issue yet,
> since we haven't created a binary release).
> - One of the goals in incubation is to build synergy between projects, and
> the more of other projects we use the more synergy we have with others.
>
> I guess my first question/proposal is instead of Grizzly, any chance we can
> use Tomcat embedded to do the same thing?  This seems to mostly affect the
> launcher component that needs an embedded container; and the standalone
> component for the same thing.
>
> The next part is whether or not we need Jersey or can leverage something
> else.  My first thought is JBoss Resteasy, which has a test framework that
> can be leveraged similar to what was just built against Jersey.  I also
> thought about CXF, it is a possible solution however it seemed like its
> test tools weren't as good.
>
> As you have likely seen from this last 1.0.1 release, using Cat B/Cat X
> type dependencies can lead to problems creating releases, which I'm sure
> all of us want to be much smoother.
>
> John
>