commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jelly] distribution format
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:59:27 GMT
Paul - thanks for your feedback, comments below. Can I ask you to 
formally vote on the vote thread, too - do these comments lead to a -1 
(hold the release until fixed), -0 (prefer them fixed, but not 
essential) or +1 (these can wait until next time) ? This *has* to be on 
the [vote] thread.

I'll also point out I have limited time to work on this now, and 
starting with JavaOne I'll be away for 3 weeks - so either this is out 
this week, someone else steps up to finish it, or it waits until August. 
I'm not in anyway trying to influence the vote here - just to give 
necessary perspective and make sure we keep moving.

Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> My first comments on the binary:
> - packaging is simple and straightforward, that's good!
> - last line of the sh script should have "$@" around instead of $* I 
> believe
>   (otherwise you don't allow spaces in parameters, should I commit this?)

I thought it was correct ("$@" expands to "$1" "$2" ... which I don't 
think works when $1 is already quoted, but I may be wrong).

> - do we not want to include an "endorsed" directory since it would 
> allow to circumvent the shipped parser and a possibly too old version 
> of xalan??

... or require 1.4 for the standalone and get rid of all of them and 
halve the distribution size :)

In the current situation, I think the JDK 1.4 or JDK 5.0 parser will be 
used which is probably a good thing (at least with 5.0 it has a newer 
Xerces built in). From what I can tell, Jelly works just fine under the 
built in parsers of these JDKs.

>
> - I would resign to take in account an existing CLASSPATH variable in 
> the script ... it tends to add unpredictability. People can still hack 
> the script if they wish.

I don't really mind either way.

> - the README is for the source... we need to have one for the binary, or?
>   It should include:
>   - which taglibs are included (not sure of the list, looks like xml 
> is not for example)
>   - which examples can be run
>   --> about this, I feel we should include examples, or maybe examples 
> with URLs ??
>   - how to download (and install) more taglibs (if possible)
>   --> about this, I fear forehead will not support this... why not use 
> shell
>    script to define the classpath using a command that takes all jars 
> in the
>    lib directory ? (or let it be with extensibility and refer to the 
> source for it,
>    not very nice)

This seems reasonable, though I'd hope the site gives them enough info 
and is easy enough to find. I think the one README can be used for both, 
starting with the binary instructions.

But really, I don't have the time to spend on this, this week.

>
> ... just to catch up quickly on talk exchanges about the documentation 
> inclusion: I think we should include the produced web-site in both the 
> source and binary distribution since it cannot be built with either of 
> them.

You can build the documentation in the source with "maven xdoc". Perhaps 
the README should be adjusted accordingly.

>
> Sorry for the late replies.

Better late than never! :)

Cheers,
Brett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message