ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT!] Fix Ant 1.5 Support for JAXP [Was: -- patch breaks bootstrap.bat Yikes!]
Date Mon, 27 May 2002 00:22:31 GMT
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Conor MacNeill wrote:

> wrote:
> > If this is a [metoo] thread - including xalan ( or an xslt impl) if you 
> > include jaxp.jar is not only nice, but it may be required by the JAXP licence. 
> > 
> There seem to be three issues in play here
> 1. Are we *required* to bundle Xalan?
> Currently we do not include a full jaxp.jar but that strange cutdown 
> Xerces one. Costin, can you give more concrete information on what the 
> JAXP licence requires?

There is a section in all JCP specs that (aledgedly) require any
implementation to pass a test suite, otherwise it can't be distributed.
There are also requirements to distribute the full impl, not a subset.
Of course, xerces is a clean-room implementation ( but as it was 
discussed, it is not clear if clean-room is ok - and some people who 
contributed on the impl. have read the spec ).

Again, it all depends on how much you care about small prints and
how you want to interpret it. Some believe that are issues with the parts 
of the licence that restrict clean-room impl of a spec. And I doubt
Sun will sue ASF for this. 

In any case, distributing Jaxp without Xalan can't be called a
 'JAXP1.1 implementation', and can't pass the test suite ( since
1/2 tests are for XSLT ). 

For an official answer you should contact Sam Ruby, or someone who
have access to the licensing list on ASF. All I can say is that 
distributing it without xalan makes me very uncomfortable.

( sory for the length - I have no idea how to deal with this kind of
stuff. I've been warned ( by a friendly person ) that only a lawyer 
can answer this question properly, and I should be careful to not
missinform people - so add an 'aledeged' or similar before each 
word above ).

> 2. Should we bundle Xalan because some people find it useful?
> I'm -0 on that question. In general I don't think we should bundle 
> everything into an Ant distribution. There are lots of other things we 
> could bundle too. Perhaps we could have the Ant mega special - not only 
> does it include optional.jar but a selection of other useful Apache jars.

The licence is my main concern. I'm +1 on bundling Xalan - because
it is useful and makes things consistent with JDK1.4 ( where it 
part of rt.jar ). 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message