You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bsf-dev@jakarta.apache.org by Sanka Samaranayake <ss...@gmail.com> on 2006/01/16 05:31:41 UTC
Suggested new changes
Hello Everyone,
As for the final preparations of a new release of BSF, I would like to
suggest the following changes.
(1) Get rid of org.apache. bsf.util.DebugLog.java class and use
commons-logging and log4j to log whatever we need to log.
(2) Remove org.apache.bsf.engines.activescript.* from the current
repository since we no longer support it.
(3) Move to testcases out from the trunk/src dir to /trunk/test which
will make it looks more cleaner.
Following is the patch with all the suggested changes;
http://people.apache.org/~sanka/refactoring.patch
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Sanka
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>.
Hi Sanka,
>one option would be to include it the testcase source file and add it
>to the testsuit after checking the availability of ooRexx in class
>path at run time.
>
>thoughts?
>
>
Hmm, that sounds like a good idea! One could even implement that in the
testcase itself at setup time and signal "engine not available for
testing" or the like.
>>>Thoughts ?
>>>
>>>
>>Great, the ball is rolling ...
>>
>>
>
>:-) , I'll apply the changes to the repository after you commit ur
>suggested changes. Else you might need to recompute the patch and I
>dont want to troble you with that .. ;-)
>
>
:)
Thank you very much for your kindness! Just checked in my changes, such
that you are able to proceed as quickly as possible.
Regards,
---rony
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by Sanka Samaranayake <ss...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rony,
On 1/16/06, Rony G. Flatscher <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> Hi Sanka,
>
> > As for the final preparations of a new release of BSF, I would like to
> > suggest the following changes.
> >
> > (1) Get rid of org.apache. bsf.util.DebugLog.java class and use
> > commons-logging and log4j to log whatever we need to log.
>
> +1
>
> > (2) Remove org.apache.bsf.engines.activescript.* from the current
> > repository since we no longer support it.
>
> +1
>
> > (3) Move to testcases out from the trunk/src dir to /trunk/test which
> > will make it looks more cleaner.
>
> +1
>
> A question: would it make sense to submit a testcase for the ooRexx
> engine, even if the engine itself is not part of the base distribution?
one option would be to include it the testcase source file and add it
to the testsuit after checking the availability of ooRexx in class
path at run time.
thoughts?
>
> > Thoughts ?
>
> Great, the ball is rolling ...
:-) , I'll apply the changes to the repository after you commit ur
suggested changes. Else you might need to recompute the patch and I
dont want to troble you with that .. ;-)
Sanka
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Sanka Samaranayake <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So could you please tell me how do these changes without hurting the
> automated build process? If I upload commons-logging.jar to
> trunk/lib directory, will it resolve the matter for GUMP?
No.
> or is there another way tell GUMP to add this jar to its class path
> when it compiles bsf-src?
Yes, add a dependency on commons-logging to BSF's Gump descriptor in
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/gump/metadata/project/jakarta-bsf.xml>.
Everey Apache committer has write access to Gump descriptors.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>.
Hi Sanka,
> I was about to commit those changes and held it back to get some
> clarification.
>
> These changes will require commons-logging.jar to be in the class
> path, when source is compiled. If I am not mistaken there is an
> automated build process via GUMP.
>
> So could you please tell me how do these changes without hurting the
> automated build process? If I upload commons-logging.jar to trunk/lib
> directory, will it resolve the matter for GUMP? or is there another
> way tell GUMP to add this jar to its class path when it compiles
> bsf-src?
unfortunately, I have no knowledge about the build process of BSF.
AFAIK, Sanjiva or Victor are/is the man in the know, but the latter one
has been quiet as if he fell off the edge of the world...
So right now, I cannot really help you, so I would say, if no one else
shows up, just go ahead with what you see fit and appropriate. If you
need assistance one way or the other, I will try to dig into this in
order to help; also we'd need to incorporate all the
suggestions/additions on new supported languages and the like.
Regards,
---rony
P.S.: One thing I would wish myself was to set BSF up such that a
regular build is created from the sources such that interested parties
get really to download the latest version of the binaries as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by Sanka Samaranayake <ss...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rony,
I was about to commit those changes and held it back to get some clarification.
These changes will require commons-logging.jar to be in the class
path, when source is compiled. If I am not mistaken there is an
automated build process via GUMP.
So could you please tell me how do these changes without hurting the
automated build process? If I upload commons-logging.jar to trunk/lib
directory, will it resolve the matter for GUMP? or is there another
way tell GUMP to add this jar to its class path when it compiles
bsf-src?
Thanks,
Sanka
On 1/16/06, Rony G. Flatscher <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> Hi Sanka,
>
> > As for the final preparations of a new release of BSF, I would like to
> > suggest the following changes.
> >
> > (1) Get rid of org.apache. bsf.util.DebugLog.java class and use
> > commons-logging and log4j to log whatever we need to log.
>
> +1
>
> > (2) Remove org.apache.bsf.engines.activescript.* from the current
> > repository since we no longer support it.
>
> +1
>
> > (3) Move to testcases out from the trunk/src dir to /trunk/test which
> > will make it looks more cleaner.
>
> +1
>
> A question: would it make sense to submit a testcase for the ooRexx
> engine, even if the engine itself is not part of the base distribution?
>
> > Thoughts ?
>
> Great, the ball is rolling ...
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Suggested new changes
Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu-wien.ac.at>.
Hi Sanka,
> As for the final preparations of a new release of BSF, I would like to
> suggest the following changes.
>
> (1) Get rid of org.apache. bsf.util.DebugLog.java class and use
> commons-logging and log4j to log whatever we need to log.
+1
> (2) Remove org.apache.bsf.engines.activescript.* from the current
> repository since we no longer support it.
+1
> (3) Move to testcases out from the trunk/src dir to /trunk/test which
> will make it looks more cleaner.
+1
A question: would it make sense to submit a testcase for the ooRexx
engine, even if the engine itself is not part of the base distribution?
> Thoughts ?
Great, the ball is rolling ...
---rony
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bsf-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bsf-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org