On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> wrote: > Everyone, I think it is time again to reopen the discussions around creating > a Validator2 release [1], which implements the upcoming JSR-303 Bean > Validation spec [2] and [3]. Since JSR-303 is now a required component of > Java EE 6 application servers and must be supported by JSR-314 JSF2 and > JSR-317 JPA2, there is growing interest in the Apache Geronimo, Apache > OpenJPA, Apache MyFaces and Apache OpenEJB projects to grow and maintain a > JSR-303 implementation at Apache. > > First, to meet this goal, I would like us to consider the following options: > > I. - Commons Sandbox > Utilize the existing validator2 sandbox area [4] to collaborate on a JSR-303 > implementation which would eventually become commons-validator-2.0. > Pros: Existing Apache committers can be given access to the sandbox and > work with the Commons community to become committers. > Cons: Non-committers must provide patches and build karma, even before the > project is moved out of the sandbox (we have interest from two companies to > help, but most of their potential contributors are not Apache committers.) > > II. - Apache Incubator > Submit an incubator proposal to create a JSR-303 focused project, which > would be sponsored by the Commons PMC and/or Geronimo PMC with the goal > being that the candidate proposal would become a sub-project of Commons as > the new Validator R2 code base. > Pros: Allows us to seed the initial project with non-committers and > demonstrate there is broad support for this project. > Cons: Additional incubator proposal and graduation overhead, along with not > working closely with the whole Commons community on developing the new code > base.
I don't really have an opinion on this - the people who are going to do the actual work should decide. > Secondly, we have two existing JSR-303 implementations that we could > possibly use to help bootstrap this effort: Can you be a bit more specific on what you think the scope for Commons Validator 2 should be? Does it need to be a JSR-303 implementation (esp. if the JBoss RI is Apache Licensed) or something built on top of JSR-303. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but if the main motivation is so that Geronimo has a fulling compliant EE 6 release why not just take the JSR 303 RI? Niall > I. - Agimatec-Validation project on Google Code > Code uses ASL 2.0 and I have approached one of the Agimatec GmbH employees > about possibly donating the existing code to Apache. > > II. - JSR-303 RI > Code being developed by Red Hat as the RI using ASL 2.0. Kevin Sutter from > the OpenJPA team has approached Emmanuel at Red Hat on this subject, but it > is doubtful we would see a code donation, but could pull it in as > third-party code to get started. > > > Please let me know your thoughts, as we would like to get this bootstrapped > this month, as the Geronimo community is starting to put together our plans > for a Geronimo 3.0 release in 2010 for a Java EE 6 application server. > > > -Donald Woods > Apache Geronimo Committer and PMC member > Apache OpenJPA Committer and PMC member > dwoods.AT.apache.org > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VALIDATOR-279 > > [2] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=303 > > [3] http://people.redhat.com/~ebernard/validation/ > > [4] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/sandbox/validator2/trunk > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
