cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heini...@gmx.de>
Subject Gump (was: Licenses of Libraries)
Date Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:51:25 GMT
On 01.03.2004 07:02, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>> What about just adding an element for licence location to jars.xml?  
>> e.g.,
> 
> Gump descriptors now contain license information and gump is checking it 
> for you. I think we should use that.

I think gump would be a cool tool if we would use it correctly or if 
it's more strict - but maybe I only don't see everything necessary. In 
theory gump descriptor contains all information about projects, sub 
projects (our blocks), dependencies and so on. But why for example does 
our gump descriptor not contain information about all JARs like about 
joost/stx at the end of the file:

   <project name="joost">
     <url href="http://joost.sourceforge.net"/>
     <description>
       Streaming Transformation for XML (STX) library
     </description>
     <home nested="src/blocks/stx/lib"/>
     <jar name="joost-20031219.jar"/>
   </project>

Is it only a question of maintenance? Or how can the descriptor say that 
Cocoon core depends on "rhino-cocoondev" but this one is nowhere 
described? The same is true for "concurrent" and many more. I might be 
wrong but in theory gump seems to be a perfect replacement for our 
jars.xml - no need for duplicate effort of maintaining JARs and JAR 
descriptions. And we don't need to maintain the JAR checker code 
anymore, just the conversion from gump descriptor to JAR documentation 
(XDocs).

Is our gump descriptor that bad maintained? Some time ago we also got 
gump error messages to the list, now we get those only from persons 
outside of Cocoon. What's the benefit of gump when we don't use it 
correctly?

Joerg

Mime
View raw message