juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Cunningham <tcunn...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release jUDDI-3.1.0
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:01:14 GMT

I believe the txt files are data for a test case.      It don't think it 
make\ sense to tag a license header into them.

The rpc file is a generated file.



On 06/16/2011 05:29 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> The build now works for me.
>
> I don't know what the .txt files are used for or how but I think it would be better to
get a license header into them if its plausible.
>
> What is the .rpc file?  Is it generated?
>
> thanks!
> david jencks
>
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Tom Cunningham wrote:
>
>> Fixed the asm issue, and I've added headers to most of the files below.      The
ones I did not add anything were :
>>
>> - the .txt files
>> - the .rpc file
>> - the .ser file, which is a serialized class file whose format that I guess rat doesn't
know about
>>
>> I think we're okay on omitting it from those files.
>>
>> The only one I'm unsure of is the .odp file - it is three powerpoint slides - we
could either add a license or just remove the file, I'll let Kurt make the call.
>>
>>
>> On 06/15/2011 06:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> done in rev 1136228.
>>> Running maven rat:check on a fresh checkout I still see:
>>>
>>>   !????? juddi-console/juddi-portal/package.properties
>>>   !????? juddi-console/juddi-portal/pluto/unitpngfix.js
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/.gwt-tmp/shell/org.apache.juddi.portlets.Application.JUnit/422AEE328955081603763BA1867826A0.gwt.rpc
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/src/main/webapp/index.html
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/conf/web.xml
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/web.xml
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/tomcat/work/gwt/localhost/_/tldCache.ser
>>>   !????? juddi-console/uddi-portlets/uddi-portlets.launch
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/companies.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/countries.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/emails.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/firstnames.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/lastnames.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/nouns.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/searchphrases.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/sentences.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/streets.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/towns.txt
>>>   !????? qa/juddi-xlt/config/data/default/words.txt
>>>   !????? qa/QATestingProcess.odp
>>>   !????? RELEASE_NOTES.html
>>>
>>> I'm also getting a new build error today that I didn't get yesterday that looks
like an asm version mismatch:
>>>
>>>    <testcase time="0.028" classname="org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistrationTest"
name="registerToJNDI_AnonymousPort">
>>>      <error message="org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor.visit(ILjava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;)V"
type="java.lang.NoSuchMethodError">java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor.visit(ILjava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;)V
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.ClassEmitter.begin_class(ClassEmitter.java:63)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory$Generator.generateClass(KeyFactory.java:173)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.DefaultGeneratorStrategy.generate(DefaultGeneratorStrategy.java:25)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.AbstractClassGenerator.create(AbstractClassGenerator.java:215)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory$Generator.create(KeyFactory.java:145)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory.create(KeyFactory.java:117)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.core.KeyFactory.create(KeyFactory.java:108)
>>>          at net.sf.cglib.proxy.Enhancer.&lt;clinit&gt;(Enhancer.java:64)
>>>          at org.mockejb.interceptor.InterceptableProxy.create(InterceptableProxy.java:38)
>>>          at org.mockejb.jndi.MockContextFactory.getInitialContext(MockContextFactory.java:47)
>>>          at javax.naming.spi.NamingManager.getInitialContext(NamingManager.java:667)
>>>          at javax.naming.InitialContext.getDefaultInitCtx(InitialContext.java:288)
>>>          at javax.naming.InitialContext.init(InitialContext.java:223)
>>>          at javax.naming.InitialContext.&lt;init&gt;(InitialContext.java:175)
>>>          at org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistration.&lt;init&gt;(JNDIRegistration.java:60)
>>>          at org.apache.juddi.rmi.JNDIRegistration.getInstance(JNDIRegistration.java:53)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I have no idea what might have changed to cause this.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We're using JUDDI-502 for this.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> --Kurt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/15/11 12:57 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I think that unless you set up some exclusions you have to be careful
to run
>>>>>
>>>>> mvn clean
>>>>> mvn rat:check
>>>>>
>>>>> or you get a lot of false arguments about stuff generated in the build....
that might be why you get a larger number of problems than I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/14/11 7:30 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aside from the build problems that someone might be able to convince
me to overlook, I ran
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn rat:check
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the unpacked source zip which showed a lot of files (119)
that did not have appropriate licensing info.  It's possible that some of these can't for
some kind of format reason but the first few I checked certainly could.  If some of these
can't have license headers I think there's a way to include a rat exclusion list where we
could document them.
>>>>>> I'm getting: Too many unapproved licenses: 893
>>>>>>     1. I think it does not like the copyright notices in the header.
>>>>>>         * Copyright 2001-2011 The Apache Software Foundation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     2. I manually checked some and some files sure have the license
missing completely,         so that sure needs fixing.
>>>>>>> I noticed a comment in juddi-portal/README that maven 2.0.6 should
be used.  If this is true for the entire project I think some updating is needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have some workarounds for the build issues I ran into that
involve:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - using derby 10.6.2.1
>>>>>>> - using geronimo jta spec instead of (sun?) javaee specs
>>>>>>> - using geronimo javamail and changing the NotifierTest.testSMTPNotifier
to expect to pass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd also prefer to see a lot of pom cleanup using dependency
management to eliminate repetition of version info.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone's happy with this idea I'm happy to update the poms
in this way.
>>>>>> Fine by me.
>>>>>>>   It might be better for someone more familiar with all the files
to look at the license issue.
>>>>>> ok I will go through a round of clean up on this.
>>>>>>> BTW I prefer to see vote emails that give the explicit location
of the source bundle and make clear that it is what is being voted on, not the tag or binaries.
>>>>>> Fair enough
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At some point the planned 'quick 3.0.5 release', turned into
a much more substantial release. One of
>>>>>>>> the major features was to support JAX-WS 2.2, and we beefed
up the client code substantially. Since we
>>>>>>>> added so much new code this release is now labeled 3.1.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/tags/juddi-3.1.0/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nexus: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejuddi-068/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please not that the uddi-ws-3.1.0 comes in 2 flavors: by
default it is compiled against the JAX-WS 2.2 spec, but we also
>>>>>>>> release a uddi-ws-3.1.0-jaxws21.jar with a 'jaxws21' classifier
to support JAX-WS 2.1 deployment environments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also I have updated the website to reflect the 3.1.0 release:
>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/site/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please give it a spin and cast your vote in the next 72 hours!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My vote: +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Kurt


Mime
View raw message