status of org.apache.tools.{bzip2,tar}

[Ximin Luo <in...@gmx.com>]

Hi,

We're currently using the bzip2/tar libraries from org.apache.tools in our
project, but I've just come across the org.apache.commons.compress library,
which seems to contain pretty much the same code.

Which version is newer, or more actively maintained? We would prefer
commons-compress, because afaics tools.{bzip2,tar} are only distributed with
ant.jar. (In fact atm we're using our own scripts to pull those out of ant.jar)

Thanks

Ximin

-- 
GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@ant.apache.org

Re: status of org.apache.tools.{bzip2,tar}

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On 2010-10-08, Ximin Luo wrote:

> We're currently using the bzip2/tar libraries from org.apache.tools in our
> project, but I've just come across the org.apache.commons.compress library,
> which seems to contain pretty much the same code.

commons-compress also contains code for CPIO and AR.

> Which version is newer, or more actively maintained?

I am a committer to both projects and merge bug fixes and features that
would be useful to Ant from commons-compress.  So for zip, bzip2 and tar
they are more or less the same, but commons-compress is definitively
more active and has shorter release cycles.

In at least one case I've told a person filing a bug report against
Ant's classes to use commons-compress instead.  The classes that ship as
part of Ant have never been designed for any usecase other than what Ant
needed.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@ant.apache.org