Hi Markus,
This list is a good place to continue asking your licensing question.
That way you'll get an answer from someone more qualified than me to
answer that question. As I understand it, the Sun folks are working
hard to get you an answer. Unfortunately, time frames get longer when
lawyers get involved.
I have forwarded this email to one of the Sun leads in case he is not
monitoring this thread.
-Tom
Markus KARG wrote:
>Tom Ware schrieb:
>
>
>>Hi Markus,
>>
>> I was initially getting some errors on one of my own tests that use
>>the Length operation when running with your platform. I do not seem
>>to be able to reproduce them now, so I guess I must have made an error
>>when I ran them. I appologize for any inconvenience this caused. We
>>should be ok to add your SQLAnywherePlatform as soon as you are
>>satisfied with the licensing issues. You'll have to let me know about
>>that.
>>
>>
>Actually I am waiting for Sun's lawyers to tell me whether you accept a
>pure GPL contribution or whether it still is needed to add the other
>licence. Can you ask what the status of that is? I mean, Sun said they
>will GPL, and my code is GPL, so there should be somebody in charge of
>saying definitively "yes" or "no" to my code. Who is that person and
>what to do to speed up the decision process?
>
>
>> FYI: TopLink Essentials is a JPA implementer, but we do not intend
>>the specification to limit the functionality. For instance, there are
>>ways you can use non-JPQL queries in TopLink. These types of queries
>>are already available to the user and as the product evolves, they may
>>become even more available. As a result, we may need to add support
>>for database functions that are not exposed through JPQL. The JPQL
>>functions are definitely a good start, and adequate for our initial
>>check-in. As the number of users of the SQLAnyWherePlatform
>>increases, do not be surprised if features are requested and
>>implemented to support more database functions (to include some of the
>>additional functions provided in some of the other platforms, or to
>>add functions unique to SQLAnywhere). I guess that's the fun of
>>providing something that is useful to people :)
>>
>>
>Unless there is a unit test provided, I'd like to abstain from adding
>more operators -- since I cannot check them.
>
>
>>-Tom
>>
>>Markus KARG wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tom Ware schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Markus,
>>>>
>>>>I took a look at your code and in general, it appears to work better
>>>>than the existing code. I suggest adding one additional operator
>>>>overload:
>>>>
>>>>The line:
>>>>addOperator(ExpressionOperator.simpleFunction(ExpressionOperator.Length,
>>>>"CHAR_LENGTH"));
>>>>
>>>>in the previous version of the platform appears to allow Length to
>>>>work properly. It might be a good idea to add that function.
>>>>
>>>>-Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>While implementation actually is easy, I do not see the benefit of
>>>doing so, since Expression.Operator.Length is defaulted to "LENGTH"
>>>which works well in SQL Anywhere (SQL Anyhwere supports both, LENGTH
>>>and CHAR_LENGTH). So instead I have added the following line:
>>>
>>>this.addOperator(ExpressionOperator.charLength());
>>>
>>>which adds support of the "CHAR_LENGTH" operator (the "LENGTH"
>>>operator is supported already by DatabasePlatform, while
>>>"CHAR_LENGTH" seems to be optional -- so now I added it).
>>>
>>>In fact I do not understand that the "old" platform should have had a
>>>problem with the default implementation "LENGTH" and why
>>>"CHAR_LENGTH" should be better: "LENGTH" was supported by SQL
>>>Anywhere since its early days, while "CHAR_LENGTH" was added in some
>>>newer release to provide standard SQL compliance (LENGTH is a vendor
>>>specific keyword of sybase, while CHAR_LENGTH is part of the SQL
>>>standard). So I would understand that it was necessary to do it the
>>>reverse way, implementing ExpressionOperator.CharLength as "LENGTH",
>>>while I do not understand what the original author intended with the
>>>line you found.
>>>
>>>But actually I do not see any benefit in this, since the
>>>entity-persistence-tests passed 601 tests before, and still is
>>>passing the same 601 tests now. So what benefit do the GlassFish
>>>users have? Is "CHAR_LENGTH" part of a future version of the EJB
>>>specification? Or is GlassFish internally running in some kind of
>>>"optimized mode" when it detects both, support for the LENGTH
>>>operator AND additional support for the CHAR_LENGTH operator? So are
>>>there more such tricks, then I will add support for more operators? :-)
>>>
>>>As you know I do not want to add any line just for fun. Each of my
>>>code lines shall be of a real use and shall provide the best possible
>>>experience to the user. So if there is no real need or benefit of
>>>this new code line, I'd like to remove it.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Markus,
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you also have changes to the
>>>>>VendorNameToPlatformMapping.properties you'd like to include?
>>>>>
>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>Markus KARG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am copying the persistence list on this reply since there may
>>>>>>>be some people on the list that are interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe there are two things we have to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. You had some concerns about the licensing. We need to
>>>>>>>alleviate those concerns. Hopefully some of the Sun folks have
>>>>>>>made some progress and can share it with us.
>>>>>>>2. We should get your code reviewed. When we all agree that it
>>>>>>>is in shape to check-in we will check it in. To get the code
>>>>>>>reviewed, I beleive the best strategy is to send it to the
>>>>>>>persistence list and request a review. Let me know if that
>>>>>>>makes sense to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>there still is the issue with the jConnect bug that Sybase denies
>>>>>>to fix and the failed test "Query.setFirstResult". Is this a
>>>>>>problem for somebody? Maybe Tom knows how we can turn the sequence
>>>>>>from "? = a" to "a = ?" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If nobody has a problem with that, I do not see a reason why not
>>>>>>to replace SQLAnyWherePlatform by my SQLAnywherPlatform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Attached is the code. Please give it a review. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>Markus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>