I don't think there's a lot of commitment to Grizzly vs Tomcat except for
expediency and all of the production use of Usergrid that I'm aware of uses
Tomcat, so it's just a case of using it within the test harnesses and the
launcher.  I think switching from Jersey might be a little more difficult.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]>
wrote:

> All,
>
> I wanted to bring up the topic of the use of CDDL based dependencies within
> Usergrid.
>
> If I look at the dependency list, I see that there are a lot of Apache
> licensed dependencies and most of which come from ASF.  There are two major
> frameworks that caused an issue recently - Grizzly and Jersey.  These two
> are CDDL 1.1 compatible licensed, which fall under Category B from an
> Apache standpoint.
>
> There are a couple of issues I see with them.
>
> - There are Apache compatible licensed equivalents out there that do the
> same thing.
> - Using CDDL licensed libraries cause an issue with derived works on
> projects, which I don't think we've fully listed out (not an issue yet,
> since we haven't created a binary release).
> - One of the goals in incubation is to build synergy between projects, and
> the more of other projects we use the more synergy we have with others.
>
> I guess my first question/proposal is instead of Grizzly, any chance we can
> use Tomcat embedded to do the same thing?  This seems to mostly affect the
> launcher component that needs an embedded container; and the standalone
> component for the same thing.
>
> The next part is whether or not we need Jersey or can leverage something
> else.  My first thought is JBoss Resteasy, which has a test framework that
> can be leveraged similar to what was just built against Jersey.  I also
> thought about CXF, it is a possible solution however it seemed like its
> test tools weren't as good.
>
> As you have likely seen from this last 1.0.1 release, using Cat B/Cat X
> type dependencies can lead to problems creating releases, which I'm sure
> all of us want to be much smoother.
>
> John
>

Reply via email to