[GitHub] [daffodil-vscode] mbeckerle commented on a change in pull request #96: RC2 Updates

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

mbeckerle commented on a change in pull request #96:
URL: https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/pull/96#discussion_r837521009



##########
File path: build.sbt
##########
@@ -34,9 +34,12 @@ lazy val commonSettings = {
       "org.apache.daffodil" %% "daffodil-sapi" % daffodilVer,
       "org.apache.daffodil" %% "daffodil-runtime1" % daffodilVer
     ),
+    dependencyOverrides ++= Seq(
+      "org.apache.commons" % "commons-lang3" % "3.12.0"
+    ),
     licenses += ("Apache-2.0", new URL("https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt")),
     organization := "org.apache.daffodil",
-    scalaVersion := "2.12.13",
+    scalaVersion := "2.12.15",

Review comment:
       This change is, FYI, super important because the latest LTS Java version, 17, requires this version of the scala libraries or obscure errors occur. 
   
   And there are good reasons to want Java 17, including that it is noticibly faster. 

##########
File path: build/bin.LICENSE
##########
@@ -2207,3 +2207,537 @@
       THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
       (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
       THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
+
+
+  This product bundles 'Saxon-HE (Home Edition)', including the following files:
+    - lib/net.sf.saxon.Saxon-HE-<VERSION>.jar in in daffodil-debugger-<VERSION>.zip
+  These files are available under the MPL 2.0 license:
+
+    Most of the open source code in the Saxon product is governed by the Mozilla Public

Review comment:
       I find this structure a bit odd. First it says "These filese are available under the MPL 2.0 license." Next sentence says: "Most of the open source code..." suggests that some of it isn't even open source code, and contradicts the prior statement. 
   
   If this language is what we're doing in Daffodil, and is boilerplate what tthe Saxon-HE license requires of us, then I'm fine with it. So long as this language is not our invention. 
   
   If this is our language, then I would prefer something that said simply "Licenses below are for the Saxon product and its sub-components.". 
   
   




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@daffodil.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org