incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Calahan <>
Subject Re: moving JAM to org.apache.jam
Date Fri, 21 May 2004 18:53:41 GMT

At 10:59 AM 5/21/2004 -0500, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>I have heard a lot of good things about JAM, but have not looked at it 
>yet.  In Geronimo we would like to offer support for annotations in the 
>GBean service layer, but that would mean using a 1.5 VM.  I don't see us 
>raising the minimum required VM to 1.5 until J2EE 1.5 comes out 
>(2007-2008?).  I only see this desire to use an annotation like system 
>expanding as more users adopt java 1.5, so if JAM can provide an upgrade 
>path I for one would be very interested.

Right, I have exactly the same problem in xml-beans, so that is what JAM is 
designed to solve.

>BTW where is the current documentation for JAM?  The links on 
> don't seem to be valid anymore.

Hi Dain.  My apologies, I'm a bit still trying to get my online house in 
order.  I just refreshed the docs - you can see them at

I should have the binaries and sources available for download very soon as 


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Patrick Calahan []
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 15:27
>>Subject: Fwd: moving JAM to org.apache.jam
>>Hello.  I'm a committer on the xml-beans project.  As part of my work
>>there, I've written an API called 'JAM' (Java API for Metadata) that is
>>becoming a useful technology in its own right.  JAM is distinct from
>>xml-beans - it is used by xbean's java-to-schema compilers, but JAM does
>>not use xbeans at all.
>>I built JAM to solve a particular set of problems that I have relating to
>>metadata and JSR175, and I believe that many other java developers are
>>going to need a solution to those same problems very soon.  I already have
>>some consumers of the API who don't care about xbeans - they only want the
>>services that JAM provides.
>>Accordingly, I am trying to give it some more visibility.  One thing I
>>would like to do is give it a better package name; it currently is
>>    org.apache.xmlbean.impl.jam
>>Ideally, I would like it to be
>>    org.apache.jam
>>but I'm not sure what Apache's policies are on using top-level package
>>names - I figured I'd better talk to someone about it first.  I bounced the
>>idea off of the xmlbeans-dev list last week, and everyone there seems ok
>>with it (email appended).
>>Ultimately, I really think JAM should be a separate project.  I'd love for
>>it to be an Apache project if possible, though I'm not sure what I should
>>do to start that process.
>>If you want to read more about JAM, I've temporarily posted the docs and
>>some white papers here:

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

View raw message