commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heini...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:36:15 GMT
On 7/29/06, Oliver Zeigermann <oliver.zeigermann <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Finally there is the third release candidate at
> http://people.apache.org/~ozeigermann/tx-1.2rc3/

>From a functionality POV it works for me. Regarding JDK 1.3 ([1]): How did you
solve the problem with the J2EE/Geronimo jars? Did you recompile them?

Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > >  * Why are the dependencies (the lib folder) included in both distros?
> > > I'd prefer that they aren't, is there any particular reason why
> > > [transaction] does that?
> >
> > The main build process uses ant which requires these libraries.
> >
> <snip/>
> 
> I'm not in favor of distributing deps along with Commons libraries'
> distributions.
> 
>  * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.

In contrast to this I prefer to deliver the dependencies as well. There are
rumours about companies that don't provide direct access to the internet from
the employee's PCs, but only via a terminal server (Unfortunately, I'm working
for such a company). The problem is simply that those people can't use such
download tasks or Maven. If you don't deliver the dependencies they have to run
after each single jar. Even for Apache Cocoon (which has a huge list of
dependencies) we will provide a distribution including the dependencies.

>  * Distribution of (potentially) 3rd party binaries (as an example,
> JUnit, in this case) means we have to understand their licenses (by
> refering to the ASF legal docs), determine reciprocity requirements as
> needed etc. No bang for the buck here.

It has worked for years. Why shouldn't it work further on?

> > >  * The source distro contains the jar -- which I wouldn't expect to be
> > > there.

Yes, this is superfluous IMO as well.

> > > And as a minor nit, there are 7 odd Javadoc warnings.

I recently fixed some of them: [2]. When I did this I did not find any worth to
be fixed.

Cheers,
Jörg

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel/86451/focus=86451
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=422227


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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