That sounds good to me. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should complete the 'Copyright' section of the ip > clearance[1], run a vote to accept the grant and initial committers > and then do the surgery to remove the LPGL deps before completing the > 'Verify distribution rights' section. > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/hornetq.html > > On 24 September 2014 11:54, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: >> I see #1 and #2 are complete. >> >> on #3 >> >> - there are a bunch of examples and documentation that do not have the >> apache license header, but this is covered in the code grant. We can >> add licenses as appropriate before a release. >> -- otherwise we are in the clear. >> >> on #4 >> >> - There is an issue with jee api jars (jms, jta, ejb etc) from jboss >> under CDDL or GPL - we will need to replace those with the geronimo >> counterparts >> >> - The jee resource adapter (.rar) implements a bunch of jboss >> extension points from ironjacamar-core-api, jboss-jca-api and >> jboss-transaction-spi - all LGPL >> -- We will need to make a functional version without those extension >> points. The wildfly specifics will have to live outside apache. >> >> - there is a hard dependency on jboss-logging-spi (LGPL) >> -- This will require some major surgery to extract the logging into a >> plugin and use possibly slf4j by default. This will touch most every >> file. >> >> - there is a twitter4j dependency under license[1] that we can drop if >> necessary. >> >> In summary, before any of the contributed code is released we will >> need to address these dependencies but they need not hinder a grant >> acceptance. >> >> Gary. >> >> [1]https://github.com/hornetq/hornetq/blob/master/distribution/hornetq/src/main/resources/licenses/LICENSE_twitter4j.txt >> >> >> On 10 July 2014 16:53, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Clebert , >>> >>> This is a far as I've been able to get with the IP clearance form: >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/hornetq.xml >>> >>> I assumed that what you guys want to donate is the code that currently >>> exists on github master (commit >>> 90d43fbc158a0e6e3028c7179dbcf984757b88fb). >>> >>> Things we still need to do: >>> >>> 1) Get Red Hat to file a CCLA with Schedule B filled out >>> 2) Get a list of your active committers and make sure they have CLAs filed. >>> 3) "Check and make sure that for all items included with the >>> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right >>> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute" >>> 4) Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is >>> covered by one or more of the approved licenses. >>> 5) Run a VOTE thread to accept the code donation. >>> >>> I encourage the rest of the ActiveMQ PMC members to help check and >>> double check items #3 and #4 before doing #5. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I'll start looking into filling out the ip-clearance from. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Clebert, >>>>> the hornetq specJMS numbers are very impressive so from my perspective >>>>> we would love to have the code base. >>>>> We can then evaluate how best to combine the relative strengths of >>>>> Apollo and HornetQ for the next gen ActiveMQ. >>>>> >>>>> Please start the process outlined at [1] and we can look at doing an >>>>> import. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 July 2014 15:37, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Clebert, >>>>>> >>>>>> That sounds very interesting! Bringing the HornetQ community into >>>>>> ActiveMQ would be exciting for me. We could collaborate and bring >>>>>> together the best features of ActiveMQ, Apollo and HornetQ to create >>>>>> an amazing next generation messaging system AND grow our developer >>>>>> community at the same time. Lots of folks have been asking me when >>>>>> will ActiveMQ get JMS 2.0 support, so the fact that HornetQ has JMS >>>>>> 2.0 support already is big plus in my book! >>>>>> >>>>>> I was building up the Apollo codebase to be that next generation >>>>>> messaging backbone for ActiveMQ, but perhaps because it's mostly >>>>>> implemented using Scala, not too many developers got involved and >>>>>> that's a bit of a problem since the 'Apache Way' of building projects >>>>>> is more about community than code. I have been pondering porting >>>>>> Apollo to be just plain Java based. Since HornetQ is Java based but >>>>>> and has a similar fully async threading architecture like Apollo, >>>>>> perhaps this donation will save me lots of work. >>>>>> >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My name is Clebert Suconic, I'm the project lead for the HornetQ JMS >>>>>>> broker >>>>>>> (http://hornetq.jboss.org/). The HornetQ team is currently in the >>>>>>> planning >>>>>>> phase for the next release of the broker and we've been thinking about >>>>>>> whether it would make sense for us to collaborate more closely with the >>>>>>> ActiveMQ community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a lot of overlap in the capabilities of the two brokers today >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> it strikes us that it would be beneficial to both communities for us to >>>>>>> join >>>>>>> forces to build one truly great JMS broker rather than spend our time >>>>>>> duplicating efforts on both brokers. ActiveMQ has a great community of >>>>>>> developers and users and it'd be great to be able to consolidate our >>>>>>> work >>>>>>> there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the Apollo sub-project aimed to provide a >>>>>>> basis for >>>>>>> the next generation of ActiveMQ, addressing some of the current >>>>>>> limitations. >>>>>>> Perhaps HornetQ could be an alternative. HornetQ has some good >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>> and scalability numbers as well as support for JMS 2.0. It already >>>>>>> supports >>>>>>> STOMP today and adding support for OpenWire would be straight-forward >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> would provide continuity for existing clients. Essentially, the goal >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> be to combine the existing flexibility of ActiveMQ with the performance >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> HornetQ. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, these are just some initial ideas, for now I'm really just >>>>>>> interested to know how the ActiveMQ community would feel about a >>>>>>> donation of >>>>>>> the HornetQ codebase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>>>>> Clebert. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Hiram Chirino >>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >>>>>> [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://redhat.com >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Hiram Chirino >>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >>>> [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Hiram Chirino >>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >>> [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >> >> >> >> -- >> http://redhat.com >> http://blog.garytully.com > > > > -- > http://redhat.com > http://blog.garytully.com
-- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
