David Jencks wrote:
On May 10, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the work on this, and especially for cleaning up the
license headers mess :)
We're now much closer to what is needed I think, but there are still a
few things to sort out before we can start releasing these.
First of all, I think the current groupId which is still
javax.portlet, need to be changed to org.apache.portals.
Once that's done, we can start updating Pluto, Jetspeed and APA
(trunks) to use our own portlet-api artifacts.
done.
Thanks!
Secondly, the /portals/portlet-spec/site folder should be moved to
/portals/site/portlet-spec, where it can be cleaned up restructured as
much as we like. But at least, by moving it from here it won't be in
the way anymore for the planned release.
It's at portlet-specs/trunk/site now so it won't interfere with the
release. Moving it is probably a good idea anyway.
Ah yes, you're right.
Anyway, we'd like to bring all Portals sites together under /portals/site to provide a clear and release independent maintenance tree, so
moving it from /portals/portlet-specs/trunk/site to /portals/site/portlet-specs is best, but there is indeed no need to rush that.
And thirdly, I think we need to decide about the OSGi bundle generation.
To be honest, I'm not very much in favor *right now* to use the Felix
plugin for this.
As you're already detected, the result is not quite similar to what
was produced manually (for portlet-api-2.0).
AFAIK, the manually produced OSGi meta-data *is* correct and how it
should be.
For instance, I think the two most important OSGi tags,
Bundle-SymbolicName and Bundle-Version, should be (and remain)
java.portlet and 2.0 respectively, independent of our our
groupId/artifactId/version, as this jar (OSGi bundle) is expected to
be a "drop in" for specifically this *spec* version.
I learned more about osgi the last couple of days :-)
Much more than I'm aware of for sure: I'm no OSGi expert by far :)
bundle-symbolic-name needs to identify these bundles as different from
the ones sun may or may not supply. It doesn't have anything to do with
what's inside :-) So I think we should continue with the default from
the maven-bundle-plugin of <groupId>.<artifactId>, here
org.apache.portals.portlet-api_1.0_spec etc.
bundle version identities the version of the bundle, not the package
version of anything inslde. So I think the standard procedure is to
start at 1.0.0.
We do need to make sure that the packages inside have version either 2.0
or 2.0.0. After a lot of headaches I discovered that the bundle-version
and the versions for each exported package have nothing to do with one
another.
OK, I trust your opinion on that.
To me, the Felix plugin doesn't seem to provide much added value but
instead a higher degree of complexity and unsureness how to use it
properly and correctly.
If we can get it to produce slightly more reasonable output by the end
of tomorrow I think we should use it. For instance it has pointed out
that the packages in Export-Packages should have uses clauses, at least
for the servlet package needed. If no answer from feiix arrives by
tomorrow then I agree we should use the manual manifest setup..... but
informed by the bundle plugin output.
Sounds good to me.
I hope Carsten can chime in on this tomorrow too as he's the one bringing in
the OSGi configuration in the first place ;)
Regards,
Ate
thanks
david jencks
With the rather critical amount of release steps coming up
(portals-pom-1.1 -> these portlet-specs -> Pluto 2.0 -> multiple
APA-1.0 projects -> Jetspeed 2.2) which are all depending on the
previous release step, I strongly urge everyone involved to keep the
amount of remaining tasks to the minimum and most practical. Switching
back to the manual OSGi bundle generation should be good enough for
now IMO.
Once the whole of these planned releases are done and over, I have no
objections to further investigate how to do this "right" (if needed)
and release an update of the spec jars later on. Which is the whole
point of now maintaining these ourselves. But lets start out with the
minimum required to get rolling.
If nobody objects, I think we can do the above 3 steps by tomorrow and
create a release 1.0 proposal right after portals-pom-1.1 has been
released itself.
Regards,
Ate
David Jencks wrote:
I've been working on this, see PORTALS-14.
I updated to use the portals 1.1 pom now under vote. I have some
comments in that thread.
It may or may not be a good idea, but I updated the names to
portlet-api_x.0_spec with version 1.0-SNAPSHOT for both specs. If we
don't like it we can change it back.
I added use of the felix bundle plugin for osgi metadata. It is
generating different info than the hand-supplied info previously in
the 2.0 spec. Here's what the bundle plugin comes up with:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Export-Package: javax.portlet.filter;uses:="javax.portlet,org.w3c.dom,
javax.servlet.http,javax.xml.namespace";version="1.0.0.SNAPSHOT",java
x.portlet;uses:="org.w3c.dom,javax.servlet.http,javax.xml.namespace";
version="1.0.0.SNAPSHOT"
Implementation-Title: Java Portlet Specification V2.0
Implementation-Version: 1.0-SNAPSHOT
Tool: Bnd-0.0.227
Bundle-Name: portlet-api_2.0_spec
Created-By: 1.6.0_07 (Apple Inc.)
Bundle-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.SNAPSHOT
Bnd-LastModified: 1241824729053
Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2
Bundle-License: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
Bundle-Description: The Java Portlet API version 2.0 developed by the
Java Community Process JSR-286 Expert Group.
Import-Package: javax.portlet;version="1.0.0.SNAPSHOT",javax.portlet.f
ilter;version="1.0.0.SNAPSHOT",javax.servlet.http,javax.xml.namespace
,org.w3c.dom
Bundle-SymbolicName: javax.portlet.portlet-api_2.0_spec
Bundle-DocURL: http://portals.apache.org/
Here's the manually constructed manifest:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Archiver-Version: Plexus Archiver
Created-By: Apache Maven
Built-By: david
Build-Jdk: 1.6.0_07
Specification-Title: Java Portlet Specification V2.0
Specification-Version: 1.0-SNAPSHOT
Specification-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
Implementation-Title: Java Portlet Specification V2.0
Implementation-Version: 1.0-SNAPSHOT
Implementation-Vendor-Id: javax.portlet
Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
Bundle-DocURL: http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=286
Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2
Bundle-Name: JSR 286
Bundle-SymbolicName: javax.portlet
Bundle-Version: 2.0
Export-Package: javax.portlet;version="2.0.0",
javax.portlet.filter;version="2.0.0"
Import-Package: org.w3c.dom,
javax.xml.namespace,
javax.servlet.http; version="2.4.0"
I'm not enough of an osgi expert to completely understand these
but..... there are some obvious problems with the felix-generated
entries in the version of import/exports. However at this point I'd
like to investigate what's going on with this a bit more before
recommending one or the other approach.
thanks
david jencks
On May 8, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
Hi David,
First of all, thanks again for helping out on this!
I have some inline comments below.
Regards,
Ate
David Jencks wrote:
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTALS-12 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTALS-13
portlet 2.0:
I removed the ibm copyrights from the source files and the
license.txt file and added the copyright notice to the NOTICE file.
I added the portals-pom as parent and used the
maven-remote-resources plugin to generate the LICENSE and NOTICE
files. I also added the LICENSE and NOTICE files to the root of
the svn source.
portlet 1.0:
I changed the license header from apache 1.1 to the current header,
allowing its release post- march-2004 :-). I also added the
portals-pom as parent and used the maven-remote-resources plugin to
generate the requred LICENSE and NOTICE files, and added these at
the root of svn source.
Other stuff I think needs to happen:
1. remove the portlet.xml.txt files unless they serve some actual
purpose.
+1, I don't see any purpose at all.
It is just an example portlet.xml which I think accidentally landed
in the source tree.
2. in 2.0, remove the statement that the spec is provisional found
in every file
+1
3. remove the portal-site src and pom completely, use the maven
generated site instead for each spec level.
We have some other plans about site management for all of portals by
moving that out of the main release cycle svn trees for each project
and instead maintain it separately (without trunk/tags folders)
based off /portals/site, with a master portals-site pom and sub
projects inherit from it (but not necessarily as parent pom modules
as maven-site plugin is too broken to deal with that correctly).
This does pose a problem for code based generated docs like reports
and javadoc, but I think we can and should simply check those in and
integrate them manually in the corresponding (sub) project site xdocs.
Anyway, I'll write a formal proposal/vote email for doing this for
all Portals projects shortly, and then in more detail.
4. make the svn tree look like:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/portals/portlet-spec
+tags
\trunk
+portlet-api-1.0
\portlet-api-2.0
+1
Somewhat to my surprise we've found this structure to work fine
with the geronimo specs and the release plugin.
5. use the felix bundle plugin to insert osgi metadata
+0, we already do this for portlet-api-2.0 within the pom itself,
not sure if more is needed here.
I guess Carsten might have some additional ideas about this.
6. remove just about everything from the poms and use the release
profile instead
+1, we're about to provide a vote on an updated portals-pom-1.1
which will use apache 6 pom
7. make the portals-pom specify use of m-r-r-plugin always.
You mean maven-remote-resources-plugin, right?
Probably +1, haven't reviewed in detail what possible side-effects
that could have though.
8 update portals-pom to use apache 6 pom as soon as it's available.
See above, and FYI: apache 6 pom is already released and available
9. (maybe) maybe I'm biased :-) but I prefer to use geronimo
servlet specs because I know a bit about their quality. I'd rather
build against the geronimo servlet 2.5 spec even though it's
uplevel for what's needed than the 2.3 and 2.4 servlet specs that I
don't know much about.
-1
Not all end users are using a servlet 2.5 container yet, and adding
a dependency on that could cause problems if they inadvertently then
would use features from that not supported in their runtime
environment.
If everyone agrees these are good changes I think I could find the
time to do them soon. I'd also be happy if someone else does them :-)
Whoever gets there first :)
You're very welcome to help out further with this, much appreciated.
thanks
david jencks
On May 6, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
My manager thinks it's OK for me, as an IBM employee, to update
the sources to conform with apache standards, I will try to get
to it today or tomorrow.
Cool!
Thanks for helping out with this David.
Regards,
Ate
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 4:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi Ate,
I haven't heard back from my manager yet, I pinged him again. I
think it's ok to add the apache license header for now, but it
would definitely be better to get it fixed, especially as the
existing license.txt file does not contain a license at all.
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
<snip/>
In addition, there is this license.txt within the source tree
containing the following:
� Copyright IBM Corp. 2006, 2007
All rights reserved.
Should that file remain or maybe should we move that
statement to our NOTICE.txt instead?
Furthermore, every portlet-api-2.0 source file also contains
the "Copyright 2006 IBM Corporation." in the header.
IIUC the recommended route is to move these copyright notices
to the NOTICE file. However someone from IBM has to do it.
I'm from IBM but right now I wouldn't be comfortable removing
them without input from at least one author or IBM legal.
I'll ask my boss and see what happens.
David Jencks, do you have any feedback on this issue?
I'd like to move forward with this proposal ASAP but its a
little unclear to me how we can and/or are allowed to proceed now.
I would think at least we are allowed to *add* the ASF licence
header to the sources while (for now) retaining the the IBM
copyright notices therein.
And the license.txt file I would think should be fine to be
removed when we move the content to our own NOTICE file.
The remaining question for me is, should we only provide the
standard ASF LICENSE file, or should that in addition *also*
contain the content of the original IBM license.txt?
Thanks,
Ate
Note that none of such copyright statements are found in the
portlet-api-1.0 source, not even from SUN.
On the other hand, the portlet-api-1.0 sources do have the
ASF 1.1 license header, not the 2.0 license header.
I'm not too familiar with what is required when a new release
is put out, but I think if we would do this, those need to be
replaced with ASF 2.0 license headers now, right?
yes, and I think we can do that without any legal arguments
from anyone.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Ate
Carsten
