You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/30 04:53:24 UTC
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Adjusted subject slightly ...
On 7/29/06, Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> Finally there is the third release candidate at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~ozeigermann/tx-1.2rc3/
>
> Compiled using a 1.3 JDK, and with the proper md5 format.
>
> I hope this is ok now. Is it?
>
<snip/>
Sigs, sums, building from source distro looks good to me.
I have a couple of comments about the distros:
* 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 source distro contains the jar -- which I wouldn't expect to be there.
And as a minor nit, there are 7 odd Javadoc warnings.
-Rahul
> Oliver
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/06, Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar <at> gmail.com> writes:
<snap/>
> >
> > 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.
>
<snip/>
Yes, it is more effort for the end user (to download the deps
individually), but I remain unconvinced this is the right way to
proceed for Commons libraries (I'm aware a lot of frameworks do such a
thing).
> > * 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?
>
<snap/>
This is not about their use, rather their distribution in our release
distros. Atleast I haven't seen such a modus operandi in the RCs I've
looked at recently. Going one step ahead, it'd be nice IMO, if the lib
directory in the [transaction] SVN repository also disappeared.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>.
2006/7/31, Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>:
> 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?
I compiled against Suns J2EE jar which was compiled using JDK 1.3. I
still include Geronimo jars as Suns jars are not license compatible.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
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
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>.
2006/7/31, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> On 7/30/06, Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> <snip/>
> > >
> > > IMO:
> > >
> > > * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.
> >
> > Oh. I am ignorant. Did not know that. How does this work? That might
> > be an option.
> >
> <snap/>
>
> The [scxml] (m1 generated) build.xml is an example, or any other m1
> generated component ant build files too (build grabs deps from
> ibiblio).
Found it. Indeed looks simple. Thanks for that :)
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/06, Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
<snip/>
> >
> > IMO:
> >
> > * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.
>
> Oh. I am ignorant. Did not know that. How does this work? That might
> be an option.
>
<snap/>
The [scxml] (m1 generated) build.xml is an example, or any other m1
generated component ant build files too (build grabs deps from
ibiblio).
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>.
2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> On 7/30/06, Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> > > * 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.
>
> IMO:
>
> * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.
Oh. I am ignorant. Did not know that. How does this work? That might
be an option.
> * 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.
JUnit is save to use. All others are from Apache. Anyway, maybe they
could be kept optional.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/06, Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> > * 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.
IMO:
* Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.
* 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.
> > * The source distro contains the jar -- which I wouldn't expect to be there.
>
> I thought that was the regular way. I.e. commons IO has the jar in the
> source distribution as well.
>
<snap/>
OK. Taking another example, the [scxml] release does not, seems
component specific.
-Rahul
> > And as a minor nit, there are 7 odd Javadoc warnings.
>
> I will have a look at it.
>
> Oliver
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Posted by Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>.
2006/7/30, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>:
> * 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.
> * The source distro contains the jar -- which I wouldn't expect to be there.
I thought that was the regular way. I.e. commons IO has the jar in the
source distribution as well.
> And as a minor nit, there are 7 odd Javadoc warnings.
I will have a look at it.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org