Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB26E0A4@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
To: "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Heads-up / opinions? - BCEL -> tt-bytecode
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:50:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Glyn!

> I'm a bit concerned about the license implications. I haven't 
> read the BSD
> license, but presumably its terms and conditions are different to the
> Apache license that applies to the other jars which are 
> checked in. This
> could affect people who want to reuse Axis. At the very 
> least, you need to
> check in a license file alongside the tt-bytecode jar file.

Yep, I realized that as I was going to bed last night.  Since tt-bytecode doesn't come with an explicit license file, I've sent mail to the developer asking for one.  The BSD-style license is, I'm 99% sure, one of the acceptable ones to Apache.

> Also, I guess Gump won't have access to the latest level of 
> the tt-bytecode
> jar file, so problems may arise if people combine Axis with 
> newer levels of
> tt-bytecode .

I don't think this is any worse a problem with tt-bytecode than anything else.  We can still track the development and interact with the developers to get everything working just like we do with Apache projects.  Also, I note that we use JUnit, which has the same issue.

> Would a better strategy perhaps be to get bcel improved and 
> possibly back
> off to using javap (or whatever preceded the user of bcel in 
> Axis) for any
> missing features until then?

We can't back off to javap, since a) I would -1 it because it's gross :), and b) we have an internal Macromedia team who needs to operate in environments where javap is not available.  Getting bcel improved is a possibility, but the only real purpose it would serve in this case is to "keep things in the family" as it were.  Since tt-bytecode is distributed under a "good" license, I'd rather stick with it (especially since we save ~200K vs. BCEL).

> Having said all this, I know you will consider the above 
> issues and I trust
> your judgement, so I vote +0.

Okee!  Thanks, Glyn.

--Glen