+1 for doing an independent implementation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: RE: [jsr109] JAXR
> IANAL, but I believe the issue is with the Supplemental Binary Code License, > section B, para 1, item iv) and v) > > [you] > (iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that > protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this > Agreement > > (v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any > damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including > attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by > any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any > and all Programs and/or Software > > -- > Jeremy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Monson-Haefel > > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:40 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [jsr109] JAXR > > > > > > JSR 109 requires support for JAXR. Specifically, it requires that J2EE > > components (ejbs, servlets/jsps, endpoints, etc.) have access to a working > > JAXR provider. The WS-I supports/condones/whatever the use of UDDI, so we > > need a JAXR provider that at least supports UDDI (version 2.0). > > > > One way to address this is to write our own JAXR provider, but I > > would like > > to avoid that if possible. Ideally I would like to use the JAXR reference > > implementation provided by Sun Microsystems. What is the licensing issues > > with regard to using Sun's J2EE RI code? I've heard a couple > > people suggest > > using various parts of the RI in other "subprojects", but I'm not sure if > > that's allowed by the RI license. > > > > Full functionality with JAXR is (IMO) far more important than performance. > > Its kind of hard to imagine many situations in which a really > > fast JAXR impl > > is needed. If performance is not an issue, than it would be best > > (again IMO) > > to use the RI implementation of JAXR and contribute back to that > > rather than > > roll our own. Again, I'm not totally sure if that's feasible or advisable > > and would appreciate any feedback from Apache wonks or anyone. > > > > > > Richard > > > > > >
