beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xmlbeans and Beehive 1.0 -- a shipping idea [was: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872]
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:46:39 GMT
Thanks Carlin, that would be really helpful. Basically, the
ProcessedAnnotations XMLBean would need to get replaced with some other
bean.  It's a simple schema (annotated-element(s) -> [element-name,
processed-annotation(s) -> [annotation-name, annotation-attr(s) ->
[attr-name, attr-value]]]). The only thing to note is that it's
recursive: an annotation-attr can contain a processed-annotation as its
value.  Let me know if you have any questions about it.

Rich

Carlin Rogers wrote:

>I can help out and take alook at the runtime support for the Processed 
>Annotations you mentioned Rich.
>
>On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Assuming we do this, I'll take everything under netui/src/compiler-core
>>(generation of config files for Struts, Validator, Processed Annotations).
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>Carlin Rogers wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Thanks for the update Eddie. I like option three (non-binding, not a
>>>committer), shipping 1.0 without XMLBeans dependence but still support
>>>XMLBean-related features for the users. I agree with the additional 
>>>      
>>>
>>benefits
>>    
>>
>>>both you and Rich have outlined.
>>>
>>>The URL template config file parsing in the DefaultURLTemplatesFactory is
>>>straightforward and can easily be implemented with DOM. Depending on the
>>>discussion and direction taken, I can contribute a patch with changes in 
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>DefaultURLTemplatesFactory to support option 3.
>>>
>>>Carlin
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/14/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I definitely think we should go with option #3. We would continue to
>>>>support XMLBeans in Beehive features (e.g., using an XMLBean directly as
>>>>a form bean for a Page Flow action), but there's no urgent need to use
>>>>XMLBeans internally for things like writing out Struts config files
>>>>(which don't even have an official schema). This also lets us avoid
>>>>forcing a particular version of apache-xbean.jar on our users.
>>>>
>>>>Rich
>>>>
>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>All--
>>>>>
>>>>>If you've been following the JSR 173 discussion with XMLBeans, you
>>>>>know that we've been discussing a licensing issue around these APIs.
>>>>>At this point, the Beehive 1.0 is effectively blocked on XMLBeans
>>>>>resolving this licensing problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>In order to ship Beehive 1.0 in the next few days, I see us at a
>>>>>point where we have some hard decisions to make. Some options:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) hold the Beehive ship for resolution to the licensing issue. It's
>>>>>not clear how long this will take; I've been in some discussions with
>>>>>BEA Legal, and it's possible that this could take a bit to figure out.
>>>>>But, it's hard to tell...hopefully some discussion / update of this
>>>>>will happen on dev@xmlbeans.
>>>>>2) ship Beehive 1.0 but require end-users to download JSR 173 and
>>>>>accept its license. Until users do this, it won't be possible to use
>>>>>Page Flow. Personally, I'm not fond of this option because it forces
>>>>>those interested in using Beehive to perform additional assembly in
>>>>>order to make the distribution work. It also forces acceptance of the
>>>>>JSR 173 license, which some organizations might not like
>>>>>3) decouple from having a binary dependence on XMLBeans. In the form
>>>>>Beehive will ship for 1.0, this includes removing this dependence in
>>>>>NetUI and the shipping system controls (EJB, JMS, and JDBC). Controls
>>>>>doesn't have an XMLBean dependency. NetUI has a binary dependency on
>>>>>XMLBeans in the compiler at build-time and for some XML parsing done
>>>>>at run time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Honestly, I'm *dying* to ship Beehive 1.0 :) and would pick option (3)
>>>>>above. I've taken a crack at rewriting the parsing for the
>>>>>beehive-netui-config.xml file, and it wasn't difficult to do. It also
>>>>>seems possible to have Beehive *support* XMLBean features that aren't
>>>>>enabled by default. For example, in the JdbcControl today, it's
>>>>>possible to map a ResultSet onto an XMLBean, but this type converter
>>>>>isn't required by default and is enabled based on *use* of XMLBeans,
>>>>>which implies its presence.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, in (3), we could take the stance that Beehive 1.0 ships without
>>>>>XMLBeans but that XMLBean-related features can be enabled if Beehive
>>>>>users wish to download XMLBeans and use it with our distribution.
>>>>>Seems like we could do this with *no loss of features*.
>>>>>
>>>>>This also has a few benefits:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) the distribution download will be somewhat smaller (maybe 15% or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>more?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>2) we don't prescribe a version of XMLBeans and let users pick a 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>version
>>    
>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>to use
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>3) selfishly, developing Beehive in an IDE gets easier because schemas
>>>>>don't need to be generated on the command line :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's discuss our options for a bit and then put it up for a
>>>>>vote...additional thoughts / comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>And, of course, the link helps...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-dev/200509.mbox/%3cc5e632550509081517394f3394@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>    
>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just to keep everyone updated...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the most recent post from Cliff into the dev@xmlbeans
>>>>>>>mailing list. Looks like we're not quite out of the woods yet
on the
>>>>>>>JSR 173 API licensing issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll send more info along as I see it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree -- great news. Thanks for dealing with it! 1.0, here
we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>come...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Steve--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't see any additional blocking ones in JIRA and agree
-- seems
>>>>>>>>>like it's time to cut a branch. Will spin out a vote on
doing so...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 9/8/05, Steven Tocco <stocco@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is great news!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Are there any other blocking issues preventing a branch
being
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>created
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>for v1?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: xmlbeans, jsr173, and BEEHIVE-872
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I just committed a change that switches Beehive onto
the new JSR
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>173
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>API package. This has been vetted by the appropriate
lawyers to
>>>>>>>>>>ensure that the license for the 173 API JAR is Apache
compatible 
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>can be shipped with a Beehive distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The XMLBeans committers are asking for advice from
ASF folks about
>>>>>>>>>>what to do with their 2.0 release. I suppose it's
possible that
>>>>>>>>>>they'll need to re-roll the release. If that happens,
we'll need 
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>decide whether to upgrade the XMLBean version we ship,
though I'd
>>>>>>>>>>guess any new version they release will be compatible
with the 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>from June.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The change I committed does a few things:
>>>>>>>>>>- switches the download package for JSR 173 from
>>>>>>>>>>http://workshop.bea.com/xmlbeans
>>>>>>>>>>- bundles the new JSR 173 API JAR in a distribution
>>>>>>>>>>- adds a LICENSE.jsr173-api file to both SVN and to
the 
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>distribution
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm going to go ahead and close the JIRA issue since
our license
>>>>>>>>>>issue should be resolved; let's watch dev@ to see
where XMLBeans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>goes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>with this next.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Questions / comments?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, yeah...here's the XMLBeans change from this
morinng about the
>>>>>>>>>>>JSR 173 bundle:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlbeans-commits/200509.mbox/%3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>c20050907192111.21792.qmail@minotaur.apache.org%3e
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/7/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All--
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you've been reading the release status
e-mails that have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the list, you've noticed that BEEHIVE-872
is tracking a license
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>issue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>with XMLBeans and their dependency on the
JSR 173 API JAR. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a change in the XMLBeans mailing list this
morning that switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>onto
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a new JSR 173 download bundle that has some
different license
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>verbage
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There's mail in dev@xmlbeans that checks to
make sure that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>license issue is resolved, but if it's taken
care of from their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>side,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sitting on a change that will add the
correct license to our
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>SVN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>tree and download and will switch us onto
the new JSR 173 
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>package.
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Once the status of this is clear, I'll commit
that and resolve 
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>blocking JIRA issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Mime
View raw message