Rules for build system changes

[Ryan Hoegg <rh...@isisnetworks.net>]

Hi all,

I am getting close to a presentable version of my Commons HttpClient 
transport.  It is time to start planning the changes to build.xml.

My local copy just has the new dependency 
(commons-httpclient-2.0-alpha2.jar) loading from my build.properties 
similarly to how jsse.jar and friends are included.  It also assumes 
availability of the HttpClient classes at runtime.

Should I provide a separate build target for this transport, thereby 
allowing you all to continue building and testing without the Commons 
HttpClient classes?

Also, this change will have the same dilemma we are seeing with Base64 
moving to Codec: How much should we shield our users from runtime 
dependencies?

--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net

Re: Rules for build system changes

[Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Ryan Hoegg wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I am getting close to a presentable version of my Commons HttpClient 
> transport.  It is time to start planning the changes to build.xml.
> 
> My local copy just has the new dependency 
> (commons-httpclient-2.0-alpha2.jar) loading from my build.properties 
> similarly to how jsse.jar and friends are included.  It also assumes 
> availability of the HttpClient classes at runtime.

Good!
 
> Should I provide a separate build target for this transport, thereby 
> allowing you all to continue building and testing without the Commons 
> HttpClient classes?

If these are going to be a standard, maintained part of the package, I'd be 
in favor of them building by default.

> Also, this change will have the same dilemma we are seeing with Base64 
> moving to Codec: How much should we shield our users from runtime 
> dependencies?

This is a general issue deserving of a separate thread.  We may also need to 
query the user list for this one.