On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
OK but either route it needs to be recorded. Niall >>>> 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
