abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>
Subject Re: JSON Dependency
Date Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:03:20 GMT

Stephen Duncan wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>> Stephen Duncan wrote:
>> > I guess this is especially a question for Elias, as you did the
>> > discussions with the JSON folks.
>> >
>> > JSON was brought in a source-dependency.  Are their plans to modify
>> > it, or is it intended to be a final version?  Right now the Ant build
>> > puts it into a json.jar file that indicates no version.
>> No plans of modifying it right now. But we could in the future. However,
>> our fixes, may not go back into his version. There's no development
>> environment/repository/etc.
>> >
>> > If it's intended to be a fixed version, it seems to me it would be
>> > better to get the approval of the JSON guys and do an official build
>> > of the Apache licensed verison, and request for it to be uploaded to
>> > the Maven repository.  Then we could just download it like the rest of
>> > the dependencies.  If we go that route, it would need a groupId, an
>> > artifactId, and a version.  I would assume those values should be
>> > groupId=org.json, artifactId=json-asl, and version=?  The version part
>> > I'm not sure if it should be 1.0, or 2.0 (I see a lot of @version 2
>> > tags in the code...)
>> >
>> I don't want to bother him with building it for us or worse yet to have
>> to deal with Maven. If I don't want to deal with a maven repository
>> myself, I'm not sure why would I ask him to deal with one.
> Well, it would be no big deal for me to build, and handle the
> upload-request process with the Maven folks.  It's just a matter of
> approval & naming, since it wouldn't normally be our place to upload
> it under a name implying it's the official version.

Right. I agree.

>> > If it's not desirable to publish it under json, we could publish it
>> > with an org.apache.abdera groupId, and some artifactId.  If we're
>> > going to be modifying it, then I think we should version it just like
>> > the rest of the modules, & do that in both the Ant & Maven builds.
>> Sounds good to me.
> Ok.  It does feel strange to me to maintain our own copy while leaving
> it's package structure of org.json alone, but if that's the path, so
> be it.

At the moment we don't need any changes. It just avoids me from having
to write all of the code we got from Douglas Crockford. If we need
"fixes", we'll apply them to our version and send the fixes his way.

>> >
>> > Thoughts?  I need a "right" answer in order to make a patch to fix the
>> > Maven build.  If you think there's a "good-enough-right-now" approach
>> > I should take, let me know that too.
>> >
>> I would love if you could resolve it. Thank you very much.
> Do we want to maintain it's version separately from the rest of
> Abdera?  In other words should it be 1.0?  1.0.0?  2.0?  2.0.0?
> 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?  Is groupId=org.apache.abdera,
> artifactId=json what we want (this will result in json-1.0.jar, for
> example)?  I'd like to make both the Ant & Maven build provide a
> version on the jars, in case changes are made in the future.
>> -Elias

We need to make it a 1.0 and keep the version separate from Abdera. We
only change its version, if we change the code.


View raw message