jakarta-bsf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ant elder" <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release BSF 3.0-beta1
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:32:13 GMT
Thanks for the review. Answers in line.

   ...ant

On 3/29/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net> wrote:
>
> - Couldn't find a KEYS file to verify your signature (checked svn trunk)


Now added: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bsf/trunk/KEYS

- The
> bsf-engines/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.script/ScriptEngineFactory
> doesn't
> contain a license (if it doesn't run with the license, leave it out
> though)


I couldn't find the right comment sequence to get it to work, I think i read
somewhere its ok for a file like this to not have a license header

- bsf-3.0-beta1-bin.tar.gz looks kind of weird in the META-INF directory
> (there is a META-INF
> directory in there)


This appears to be a bug with the pnuts engine. This isn't a blocker is it?


- You have built with jdk1.5, although the version supported is
1.4.2(assuming you developed using
> jdk1.4.2)


Thats true. The maven-compiler-plugin is set to use 1.4 though and I have
used this with Synapse using 1.4.2 i think. Is this an issue?

- Not sure if we are allowed to distribute the javax packages, since we
> didn't pass the TCK yet
> (even though there is a disclaimer). I seem to recall reading somewhere
> (very vague, I know), that
> you cannot use the package name until distributed (geir or someone else
> who knows better, please
> correct me)


Geir has said it is ok:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-bsf-dev/200703.mbox/%3c71e1b5740703150549p2b0eb58kfe615485afbb69a7@mail.gmail.com%3e

- Are we allowed to redistribute the engines in bsf-engines ? Doest BSF work
> without them ?


This is a point in time thing to make BSF useful without requiring uses do
extra downloads. I hope we can stop doing this in the near future by
implementing a core set of our own engines, or in the more medium term
future, i think script languages don't include a JSR-223 engine today as
there's no JSR-223 API impl available under a good license, so once BSF
passes the TCK script languages may start including their own JSR-223
engine.

I believe we are ok distributing them for now. They are under a BSD license
which according to the 3rd party licensing policy is a "Category A:
Authorized License". See: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html and
https://scripting.dev.java.net/.

- What is the distribution directory in the src zip / tgz ?


It contains the build scripts to build the bsf-all jar and for the maven
assembly plugin to create the bin and src distributions.

- No site in source (maybe useful in dist?)
> - No javadoc in binary dist


These are both true. Next release? Also note that right now most Javadoc
comments just refer to the Sun docs, eg see:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/bsf-api/src/main/java/javax/script/SimpleScriptContext.java


Some are blocking, some are not (also depending on some answers)  :)
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
>
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > Please review and vote on the BSF 3.0-beta1 release.
> >
> > The source, binary, and maven artifacts are at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~antelder/bsf/3.0-beta1/
> >
> > The svn tag is at:
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bsf/tags/bsf-3.0-beta1/
> >
> > Here's my +1 (non-binding I believe)
> >
> >   ...ant
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message