| Re: [udig-dev] technology-pmc exemption discussion |
Okay so we need to put on thinking hats for a moment, as I obviously bungled the JAI / ImageIO exemption discussion.Before being able to answer if this is a "works with" or "exempt pre-req" we need to sort out a story for ease of use from a users point of view.
We have already experienced what it is like asking users to pre-install JAI, and it was not pretty. Any more ideas, we will need to sort out a workable story before resuming discussion on technology-pmc list.
Jodyworks with - choice- this would be a pretty hard story for usability, as the application would not be able to display raster data out of the box- the advantage would be offering the user the choice of:a) installing JAI and ImageIO locally; orb) hitting a "hydrologis" or "geosolutions" update site to download the JAI / ImageIO fragmentsI like it from an efficiency standpoint, but ease of use takes a real hit.exempt pre-req - jre- a single choice of installing JAI prior to running- downloading a preconfigured jre folder from a community website and dropping it into their uDig installation (ie same procedure developers use)exempt pre-req - webstartActually I have one half-baked story, the other official oracle way to distribute JAI and ImageIO is via Java WebStart (https://java.net/projects/jai-webstart). Java WebStart lets you describe the your JRE Environment (including JRE extensions) and will set things up for your app to run.So we may be able to view that as a cross platform alternative to an installer...a) webstart app that can download a light version of uDig, and use update site(s) for the rest
b) webstart app that can download a "system configuration" app, just an excuse to confirm that JAI and ImageIO are available locally-
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Wayne.So in this case I have gathered a lot of the background research, as the individual requesting the exception, I have already determined that it is reasonable from a technology point-of-view.I can make that evaluation explicit and will do so.JodyOn Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For any "works with" dependency, the PMC needs to determine if the request is reasonable from a technology point-of-view. We don't need to include anybody else in this discussion, unless there is some exceptional need. If we are unable to make the technical assessment ourselves, we might consider including subject matter experts, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case here.
Wayne
On 08/21/2013 08:52 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Hi Frank:
Responding to your question "on the side" so it does not get in the way of the discussion of the JAI and ImageIO exemption request.
My understanding is that asking for an exemption needs to go up the chain of command for a sanity check as it is not a common occurrenceAgree, wondering how long this could take. However, I guess you prepared it very well.
Thanks, I only have our conversation with Wayne to gauge timeframe. I have not done this before either.
But who is on the other end to discuss this request? IP Team / Technology heads of LocationTech / Eclipse.
The Technology PMC list is the correct place for discussion. Wayne is there anyone else who needs to be involved in this stage?
Have you already created an CQ by now? If so, could you share the link here?
I have not created the CQ, although I think you have rounded up an excellent description of what we need to distribute.
Aside: I am not going to return to CQ land until tomorrow evening. I expect a CQ number is not needed for the discussion to take place.
Jody
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
