On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we >>> repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279. >>> >>> As far as the API, we already have a clean room copy of the 1.0 GA API >>> created over in the Apache Geronimo Specs subproject [1], with the other >>> Java EE spec APIs we ship, so I'd be -1 on creating another copy, see >>> VALIDATOR-274 for history. >>> >>> As far as the provider implementation, I've been working with the >>> Agimatec-Validation project [2] currently hosted on Google Code which is >>> ASL >>> 2.0 licensed to bring it over to Apache. >> >> Cool :) >> >>> I have a completed SGA from the >>> company (Agimatec Gmbh) that developed the code, but was working with >>> some >>> other ASF members on how we should bring the code into the ASF, so guess >>> it's time to start discussing that here. >> >> Has the SGA been recorded at the ASF? > > No, as I was waiting to see if we were going the Podling or sub-project > route. > >> >>> Currently, our thoughts were to >>> bring it in as a subproject to an existing TLP (like Commons, OpenJPA or >>> Geronimo) and not create a new Incubator Podling, since we have >>> committers >>> from multiple projects interested in working on a JSR-303 implementation >>> (Geronimo, OpenJPA, MyFaces, OpenEJB, Commons, ...). The only >>> complication, >>> is that we would need to offer committership to Roman from Agimatec as >>> soon >>> as the Incubator IP clearance is finished, as he would need to be the one >>> to >>> remove the existing Agimatec copyright statements. Thoughts? >> >> If we have an SGA from the Agimatec then I think anyone can remove >> their copyright statements from the source code. However its not nice >> IMO to take someones code and then expect them(Roman) to start >> submitting patches and not give them access. If we did this in the >> Commons Sandbox, then all the existing ASF committers can have access >> straight away - but I think its unlikely that the Commons PMC will >> grant Roman access from day one (I can ask though). If that is the >> case then it would be better to do it as an incubator podling. We have >> done that recently when commons accepted Sanselan from the incubator >> and graduating should be relatively easy since Commons's requirements >> for a component to be part of "proper" are usually 1) is it ready to >> release and 2) does it have 3+ committers. > > Either a Podling or sub-project works for me. The only complication with a > sub-project, is I'd need a Commons PMC member to work with me to submit the > initial Agimatec code snapshot, IP clearance form and SGA to the Incubator > for me.
I can do that. > Can you start a discussion on priv...@commons about accepting the codebase > and which method the community would like to follow? Already done. Niall > -Donald > >> >> Niall >> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-validation_1.0_spec >>> >>> [2] http://code.google.com/p/agimatec-validation/ >>> >>> >>> -Donald >>> >>> >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>>> >>>> The current trunk in the validator2 sandbox is a copy of the Validator >>>> 1.4 code from "commons proper" - but I think we should dump all the >>>> existing validator framework code and just retain the "routines" >>>> package. Trying to maintain any sort of compatibility with the >>>> existing validator framework would be alot more work and code and >>>> create a real mess IMO and I think it would be better to not to even >>>> try. The "routines" package was refactored realtively recently(!) and >>>> can stand on its own. >>>> >>>> So I would like to propose the following direction for a Validator2 >>>> based on the Bean Validation Framework(JSR 303) - a project with three >>>> separate modules composing of: >>>> >>>> - The Bean Validation (JSR303) API - no dependencies >>>> - Standalone Validation Routines (based on existing validator >>>> routines package) - no dependencies including Bean Validation API >>>> - Validation Framework - JSR303 implementation (depends on two modules >>>> above) >>>> >>>> I have created an alternative branch in the Validator sandbox project >>>> based on the above approach: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/sandbox/validator2/branches/alternative/ >>>> >>>> I have created a "clean room" implementation of the Bean Validation >>>> API[1] which (hopefully) is complete except for JavaDocs. The only >>>> real functionality is in javax.validation.Validation - the rest are >>>> annotations, interfaces and exceptions. I have also copied the >>>> "routines" package into a standalone module[2]. So the next thing is >>>> to start the actual framework implementation module. >>>> >>>> How does this sound as an approach? >>>> >>>> Niall >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/sandbox/validator2/branches/alternative/validation-api/ >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/sandbox/validator2/branches/alternative/validation-routines/ >>>> [3] >>>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/sandbox/validator2/branches/alternative/validation-framework/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
