db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: PlanExporter library requirements (DERBY-4587) (long message)
Date Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:36:02 GMT
  On 7/23/2010 5:54 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>  On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>> I agree wholeheartedly  as well with these points.   As for my 
>>> admittedly  gut level concerns for adding the JQuery (non-Apache  
>>> license)  build dependency and necessary NOTICE update, I sent an 
>>> email query to someone that understands these issues better than I 
>>> and hope to hear back soon.  I will post as soon as I understand it 
>>> better.
>> Well Nirmal, I still don't understand things yet, but don't think I 
>> should ask you to wait any longer.  I think you should investigate 
>> build options that are as loosely coupled as possible as Bryan 
>> suggests and ideally a build that will succeed if JQuery is not 
>> present, but not build the functionality that needs it.  This is what 
>> we used to do with the osgi.jar requirement before we checked in the 
>> felix source for building.
>> Thanks
>> Kathey
>  We need to continue to have a product which builds completely out of 
> the box. 
I think appropriately licensed stubs for the build would be ok if we 
don't repackage code, but as I said I don't understand the licensing 
considerations in this case and won't be back on the list for a couple 
weeks.  I think a loosely coupled build would not be a regression as 
this is adding new functionality and would not regress any existing 
functionality. Some better long term build strategy could be implemented 
later and still let Nirmal finish his summer project.   I agree that 
repackaging source in the product would be really bad.

As an aside  I think the build still has the Junit dependency, but maybe 
just for the tests. I haven't tried building just the product, but it 
would be great if someday that was not required for ant all.



View raw message