Skip to main content

BetterBeansBinding: ready, start, go (1.2.2 released)

Posted by fabriziogiudici on April 25, 2009 at 1:12 PM PDT

After some delay, as I tried to work around a problem with Maven + Cobertura + Hudson, the BetterBeansBinding project is ready to go. I've released 1.2.2 which is no functionally different from the latest Shannon's commit of BeansBinding: it probably shouldn't be used for production, since I don't know in which state the last commit was done (and the current test coverage is 18%). BTW, I temporarily commented out two tests, which seems to be not finished, in order for Cobertura to compute the coverage. 1.2.2 will be used as the target release to file issues and RFE against.

The job performed so far has been related with the set up of the new project: changes in the license, Hudson CI and mavenization. The bug related to Hudson and Cobertura hasn't been resolved yet, but I don't want to postpone the start up of the project further. So, I've generated a Cobertura HTML report and manually committed to the repository.

I've still to find a way to copy the issues from the BeansBinding tracker, so in the meantime if you have something urgent to fix, please report it again against BBB issue tracker.

PS I've kept the same licensing, Lesser GPL v2.1. Should I upgrade to LGPL v3?


beansbinding was pure LGPL 2.1 - so I think there would be no problems. But given that licensing is always a mine field and there's no apparent need for LGPL 3, I've decided to keep things as they are.

i disagree, the "any later version" clause is an option left to the code owner, and is not mandatory at all. For instance, this quote is both present in the lgpl 2.1 and gpl 2: 'If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation'. I'm not sure whether beansbinding has this clause or not, and looking at the code didn't help, a lot of Sun's open source code doesn't though and for instance are under strict GPL 2.

Generally true, but LGPL2.1 contains an explicit clause that allows to upgrade to later releases of the license at the owner choice. I *presume* the fork doesn't matter in this case.

if it's really a fork, you can't change the license that easily :)

Congrats! Once you get a better idea of how stable the current build is, I look forward to replacing the old BB with the new shiny BBB :-)

AFAIU, upgrading to LGPLv3 would break compatibility with people using strict GPLv2. So probably it's better to stay with LGPLv2.1.

Thanks Jim. I've also fixed the link.

P.S. -- I noticed that the link to the BetterBeansBinding project has an 's' on the end and takes users to by accident Jim

Hi Fabrizio, I found a helpful table that might help with the decision about whether to upgrade to v3 or not: I can't say I follow it entirely without looking at it more carefully, but hopefully it will be of help as you make your decision. Cheers, Jim

Hi Werner. I'm not part of the EG and the status of JSR-295 for sure is not related to the state of BBB. BBB, anyway, will keep the compatibility with JSR-295.

Is ths project the reason why JSR-295 is still called active, despite no EDR or other significant effort from the EG since its forming 2006 ??;-) And are you part of the EG? Thanks, Werner