[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openejb-development
Subject:    Re: Add Java EE schema files to Geronimo Server?
From:       David Jencks <david_jencks () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2011-06-22 20:08:26
Message-ID: 9A4D40EE-3149-456B-98CA-D5A9E3E4E73B () yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> 
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
> 
> > Hi Geronimo and OpenEJB devs,
> > 
> > I am fixing the servlet tck problems. And it requires to validate the standard \
> > Deployment Descriptors xml files before deployment.  Now we use the \
> > org.apache.openejb.jee.JaxbJavaee to do the unmarshal, for example, a web.xml to \
> > a WebApp object. So we need add the validation procedure there. But before that, \
> > I think the first thing we should consider is to place the schemas (i.e. xsd \
> > files from http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/) somewhere, so that we can create \
> > the Schema object from them easily and quickly.  So, I am asking:
> > 1. Where is the appropriate place to hold these xsd files? Openejb project?
> 
> You are implying that the .xsd files are required in svn and could not be used from \
> their current locations, e.g. http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/application_6.xsd \
> or other non-svn locations... Which is probably true... 

These files are needed at runtime to construct the Schema object used for validation. \
So IMO they need to be in any binary distribution so validation works without an \
internet connection.  So I think including them in svn and source makes what's going \
on clear and is much simpler.
> 
> If the Jaxb code is in OpenEJB, then OpenEJB would seem like the natural location. \
> Where ever the JaxbJavaee code is, I think the schema's belong there, also...

that's openejb.

thanks
david jencks

> 
> > 2. Is there any legal problem we distribute Geronimo server with these xsd files \
> > packaged in?
> 
> No, there isn't a problem. The schema's are dual licensed -- GPL v2 and CDDL. \
> Normally, these are unacceptable source licenses for apache projects. Note that \
> CDDL is an acceptable license for binary-only dependencies (no CDDL source code). \
> However, there is an exception made for this very case -- small amounts of source \
> code that is unlikely to be changed (e.g. when the source represents a "standard"). \
>  For more information, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> 
> In terms of LICENSE/NOTICE files -- include the dual license (GPL + CDDL) and we \
> make explicit that we choose CDDL. 
> > 3. We also need a xsd file (http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd) form W3.org. It is in \
> > public domain, isn't it?
> 
> There's a W3C license. See -- http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php
> 
> --kevan
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]