Also updated the website which now presents the access module as a third party extension. http://metamodel.incubator.apache.org/
2013/8/26 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: > I'm removing the access module then and updating METAMODEL-10 accordingly. > > 2013/8/23 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: >> That is good to know Juan. Maybe someone could verify if that JDBC >> driver works with our JDBC module. At least that would be a good >> addition, regardless of what we do with the dedicated access module. >> >> For now I've copied the access module to a new project at eobjects.org >> (where LGPL is accepted): http://eobjects.org/svn/AccessReader/trunk/ >> >> Do we then all agree to remove the access module from Apache MetaModel? >> >> 2013/8/23 Juan Jose van der Linden <[email protected]>: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> There is also an open source JDBC driver based on jackcess: >>> http://ucanaccess.sourceforge.net/site.html >>> So that would be a way to connect to MS Access also via JDBC. >>> It seems that the jackcess library is currently the only java library one >>> that connects to MS Access. >>> >>> So I think option 1 is the way to go. There will be probably more libraries >>> that need this construction becauso of the license. >>> >>> Regards, >>> JJ. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23-08-13 09:27, Kasper Sørensen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I think we've had a bit of time now to ponder on what to do with the >>>> MS Access module (which violates the Apache license because of the >>>> Jackcess dependency that is LGPL). >>>> >>>> I think our options are: >>>> >>>> 1) Move the module out of Apache MetaModel and let it live as a third >>>> party module (like the SAS and dBase modules). >>>> >>>> 2) Find an alternative dependency (I don't know of any other Java >>>> libraries for reading MS Access) >>>> >>>> 3) Pursuade Jackcess to re-license to an Apache compatible license (I >>>> think this is a very long shot, but was mentioned earlier on...) >>>> >>>> If anyone knows a alternative library (option 2), that's my favorite. >>>> But if not, I am prepared to go for option 1. >>>> >>>> What say you? >>> >>>
