You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> on 2007/06/08 23:43:15 UTC
[VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/
~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
> Jacc: +1
> Deployment : +1
> Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
> sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd
> and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is
> missing in pom
> Stax: +0.1 missing scm section.
>
> I think the servlet one needs to be re-rolled. It might be worth
> fixing the poms in the activation and stax at the same time just to
> make it easier to find the source code, but I'm not adamant about
> that.
I am also now -1 for Servlet. I took a look at both the dtd and xsd.
They were both committed by the Tomcat project into Tomcat svn and
subsequently copied into Geronimo. However, both files appear to be
copies of Sun copyrighted materials, with Sun copyright and licensing
terms (i.e. restrictions of use) removed.
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
On 6/11/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
> Jacc: +1
scm section in pom.xml is wrong
> Deployment : +1
scm section in pom.xml is wrong.
> Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the sun
> explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd and
> javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is missing
> in pom
> Stax: +0.1 missing scm section.
>
> I think the servlet one needs to be re-rolled. It might be worth
> fixing the poms in the activation and stax at the same time just to
> make it easier to find the source code, but I'm not adamant about that.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > Please review the specifications located at http://
> > people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
> >
> > We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> > block and others will proceed forward.
> >
> > Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
>> sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-
>> app_2_2.dtd and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also
>> scm section is missing in pom
>
> I mentioned earlier that we could switch over to tomcat's JSP and
> EL specs when they publish their next stable release (probably
> 6.0.14) to maven central. But I think we should be able to use
> their current version of the servlet spec because last time I took
> a look it passed all tests.
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/tomcat/servlet-api/6.0.13/
>
> Their spec jar contains the same XSDs with the suspicious
> "explanatory comments" that you object to in geronimo's copy, so I
> don't know if using their copy instead of releasing our own
> addresses your concerns.
No, and I'm reluctant to use their copies in the future if the origin
and acceptability of these explanatory comments is not explicitly
elucidated. I apologize for not bringing this up earlier, but I
forgot about the issue until I was reviewing the proposed release jars.
thanks
david jencks
> Just wanting to get this option out on the table.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
> sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd
> and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is
> missing in pom
I mentioned earlier that we could switch over to tomcat's JSP and EL
specs when they publish their next stable release (probably 6.0.14)
to maven central. But I think we should be able to use their current
version of the servlet spec because last time I took a look it passed
all tests.
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/tomcat/servlet-api/6.0.13/
Their spec jar contains the same XSDs with the suspicious
"explanatory comments" that you object to in geronimo's copy, so I
don't know if using their copy instead of releasing our own addresses
your concerns. Just wanting to get this option out on the table.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
Jacc: +1
Deployment : +1
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the sun
explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd and
javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is missing
in pom
Stax: +0.1 missing scm section.
I think the servlet one needs to be re-rolled. It might be worth
fixing the poms in the activation and stax at the same time just to
make it easier to find the source code, but I'm not adamant about that.
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Oh yeah...here is my +1
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> Please review the specifications located at
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>>
>> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> block and others will proceed forward.
>>
>> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Oh yeah...here is my +1
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> A couple of questions about the spec releases:
>
> 1) Why does activation-1.1 still have a trunk branch in svn?
It doesn't ... perhaps you have some local mods in the FS that kept
subversion from deleting it.
> 2) Why hasn't the javamail-1.4 spec been released? Geronimo has
> an indirect dependency on the 1.4 spec through the javamail uber-
> jar, which also needs to made into a release.
I didn't have the brainpower to work through this last week. If you
have time to put it together for a release that would be awesome.
Otherwise I'll get to it later this week after sorting through the
other issues raised by folks on the current specs.
>
> Rick
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> Please review the specifications located at http://
>> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>>
>> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> block and others will proceed forward.
>>
>> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
A couple of questions about the spec releases:
1) Why does activation-1.1 still have a trunk branch in svn?
2) Why hasn't the javamail-1.4 spec been released? Geronimo has an
indirect dependency on the 1.4 spec through the javamail uber-jar, which
also needs to made into a release.
Rick
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at
> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
The geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1-sources.jar has some extra source
files in it. But the binary looks ok.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
+1
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at
> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the block
> and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at
> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
+1
Jarek
On 6/10/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 Binaries and source look good.
> --kevan
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > Please review the specifications located at http://
> > people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
> >
> > We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> > block and others will proceed forward.
> >
> > Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/10/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 Binaries and source look good.
> --kevan
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > Please review the specifications located at http://
> > people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
> >
> > We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> > block and others will proceed forward.
> >
> > Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1 Binaries and source look good.
--kevan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Kevan,
>
> I'll work on it.
Cool. Thanks, Prasad.
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Kevan,
I'll work on it.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/9/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
> > other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
> > issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
> >
> > Thanks for your critical eyes.
>
> OK. In my eyes, this vote has been concluded. Can we stop "voting" on
> the follow-up discussion? We need to update the problem specs and
> spin up a new release vote. Volunteers?
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
> other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
> issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
>
> Thanks for your critical eyes.
OK. In my eyes, this vote has been concluded. Can we stop "voting" on
the follow-up discussion? We need to update the problem specs and
spin up a new release vote. Volunteers?
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
+1 on releasing these specs.
Lin
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
> order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
> Axis2).
>
> Jarek
>
> On 7/4/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
>> now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
>> activation specs.
>>
>> Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
>> seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>> > I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
>> > other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
>> > issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your critical eyes.
>> >
>> > On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please review the specifications located at http://
>> >> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>> >>
>> >> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> >> block and others will proceed forward.
>> >>
>> >> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet
and StAX
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
+1
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
> order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
> Axis2).
>
> Jarek
>
> On 7/4/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
>> now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
>> activation specs.
>>
>> Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
>> seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>> > I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
>> > other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
>> > issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your critical eyes.
>> >
>> > On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please review the specifications located at http://
>> >> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>> >>
>> >> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> >> block and others will proceed forward.
>> >>
>> >> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
> now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
> activation specs.
>
> Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
> seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
> > other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
> > issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
> >
> > Thanks for your critical eyes.
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> Please review the specifications located at http://
> >> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
> >>
> >> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> >> block and others will proceed forward.
> >>
> >> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
activation specs.
Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
> other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
> issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
>
> Thanks for your critical eyes.
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> Please review the specifications located at http://
>> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>>
>> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> block and others will proceed forward.
>>
>> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
Thanks for your critical eyes.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
+1
Vamsi
On 6/9/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
> Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/
> ~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>
Re: [VOTE] Release specs for Activation, JACC, Deployment, Servlet and StAX
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
> block and others will proceed forward.
>
> Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
>
> Thanks
>