lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [POLL] JTS compile/test dependency
Date Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:22:42 GMT
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The code can be separated so that the the dependencies are as you
>> suggest -- i have done this, but it makes testing more difficult and
>> less robust.  As part of the framework I've introduced a robust way to
>> use the same data and and tests with different strategies and
>> implementations.  For me to work on it, i need the stuff i use to be a
>> first class citizen in testing.
>>
>
> Right, but this creates a problem for our testing too: if we open this
> can of worms with optional LGPL stuff I think its going to actually
> complicate build and testing.
> I already stated my concerns about this here: http://s.apache.org/vE
>
> I don't think the bdb should be used as justification already that the
> "can of worms is already open". Personally I didn't realize the
> license it had, and for these same reasons, when i found this out i
> put up a patch on Grant's issue.
>

I totally agree -- this was my preface to the whole discussion, and
why i think it may be more appropriate to move spatial dev to an
environment that can have different compile time choices.

I'd like to figure a way that this is a win for everyone -- this is
why i'm bothering with the prolonged discussion so that at least
motivations are clear and all that.

ryan

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


Mime
View raw message