commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [jelly] Jelly build fun and Library registration
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2003 06:44:05 GMT

On 31 Oct 2003, at 22:18, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>> If I look at the Maven distribution I see there is a Jelly  jar there 
>> and it only has the core jelly packages and then there are some other 
>> jars with separate jelly taglibs in them eg the ant and util tags.    
>> Looking at the jelly.properties file from Maven, it is also appears 
>> to be different from the stand alone jelly version so it looks as if 
>> those files are being made by mavens build (haven't downloaded the 
>> maven source).    Since Jelly was split off from Maven this is 
>> understandable.   Is it the intention of the Jelly team to split the 
>> libraries and the build in this way too?   ... cos I'd really like to 
>> see that and I think a couple of others might (might they?  ...)    
>> Something like a jelly-full.jar or jelly-core.jar with 
>> jelly-optional.jar or jelly-core.jar with jelly-ant.jar, 
>> jelly-util.jar ... etc would be cool
>
> It would sort of prevent the philosophy of small-projects of maven, I 
> believe.

Agreed. Though a commons-jelly-all.jar would be damned handy. There's 
so many little & useful jelly libraries, its a little painful listing 
them all in a project sometimes.

>> - Also If you want to include your own neat namespace declaration 
>> like this
>> 	<jelly xmlns="jelly:core" xmlns:f="jelly:BQData">
>> instead of this
>> 	<jelly xmlns="jelly:core"                  
>> xmlns:f="jelly:com.braidquest.jelly.data.BQDataTagLibrary">
>> 	
>> ... then you have to edit the jelly.properties file inside the jar 
>> which is a bit messy
>
> In the tasklist in the documentation there is a little hint about 
> this, I think James Strachan intended to use something like the 
> META-INF/services... but no-one has made the work since then.
> Presumably that work would be easier as commons-discovery has evolved.

Agreed - I was hoping we could just use commons-discovery. However 
something like Justin's patch might be a simple way to make it easier 
for folks to register their own libraries. (Maybe one minor change - 
parser a local jelly.properties *and* the default one in 
org/apache/commons/jelly/jelly.properties - then your local 
jelly.properties only has to include your own local libraries and not 
the core stuff).

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


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


Mime
View raw message