At 12:50 1/11/00 +0100, you wrote:
>> but the code to do the loading will.
>
>You are talking about jBoss being hardcoded to start
>Tomcat here?
>I agree this is a problem, but fixing this problem is
>IMO not.
>Now assuming we have already fixed this problem, do
>you think there would be other problems with having
>jBoss and Tomcat loaded in the same VM ?
Not even hardcoded - the mechanisms you have now in place or even with some
changes are just not enough. Tomcat has to be to jBoss what a servlet is to
a servlet engine. jBoss has to provide a place to run Tomcat or any other
program with a similar interface.
So you need to define such an interface and make sure it is widely
implementable. Ie Need a mail server ? then it implements interface. Need a
directory server --> implement the interface.
If you do that then there is no problem.
>> >> 3 is violated all the way through jBoss with JAAS, JTA, (EJB ?), JMX,
>> (JMS?)
>> >
>> >Yes. I agree that we must get rid of the violations.
>>
>> the question I ask is - Is it possible ?
>
>I think it is, but it depends on what is considered
>"platform code" on the Java platform.
>I guess you are talking about the EJB system classes
>and interfaces as distributed by Sun in file ejb.jar.
>These are all in javax.ejb.*, so if javax.* code is
>considered "platform code" there should be no problem
>with this.
>Similar arguments for JTA and JMX.
>Haven't checked JAAS and JMS, but I would be surprised
>if they are not also in javax.*.
right but under GNU interpretation this does not hold. Only stuff that are
downloaded in one package (ie j2ee, j2se, j2me, personaljava etc) is
considered to be covered by clause 3. The extra extentions (javax.* not
included in above) is not covered by clause 3.
>Yes. The GPL document is copyrighted, no permission is
>given to modify, and just to be sure they explicitly
>noted that changing it is forbidden.
>IMO that is a Good Thing.
so do i ;)
>This is why it is always amended rather than modified.
>But amending it is also problematic, for reasons
>already discussed.
>If possible we should try to avoid amendments.
right - I am not sure that is possible given above (namely extentions are
not covered by clause 3). So you could continue to make it GPL via
* designing a special interface that arbitrary services could be launched
from and then implementing a tomcat service and placing this code in a
different archive from jBoss code.
* giving exceptions for all standard java extentions.
>But there are still a few open ends, most notably
>the (IMHO very important) definition of "platform
>code" for the Java platform. I remember there used
>to be a GNU mailing list for discussing questions
>about the GPL, but I cannot remember the name of it.
>Taking the question of "platform code" for the Java
>platform to such a mailing list might be a good
>idea.
>Do you have the name of the list?
nope - but you may want to ask on classpath list. IIRC they had a
discussion similar to this ages ago and hopefully some of the old members
are still around.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
