ant elder wrote: > Thanks for the review. Answers in line. > > ...ant > > On 3/29/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> - Couldn't find a KEYS file to verify your signature (checked svn trunk) > > > Now added: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bsf/trunk/KEYS
Will check it tonight :) > > - The >> bsf-engines/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.script/ScriptEngineFactory >> >> doesn't >> contain a license (if it doesn't run with the license, leave it out >> though) > > > I couldn't find the right comment sequence to get it to work, I think i > read > somewhere its ok for a file like this to not have a license header In this case it is ok to leave it out, since you will end up with an unworkable solution. > > - bsf-3.0-beta1-bin.tar.gz looks kind of weird in the META-INF directory >> (there is a META-INF >> directory in there) > > > This appears to be a bug with the pnuts engine. This isn't a blocker is it? Nope, just something that looked weird. Btw was pnuts also under a bsd license (could be that you need to add an extra license for just pnuts) > > > - You have built with jdk1.5, although the version supported is > 1.4.2(assuming you developed using >> jdk1.4.2) > > > Thats true. The maven-compiler-plugin is set to use 1.4 though and I have > used this with Synapse using 1.4.2 i think. Is this an issue? Just making sure you were aware of it :) > > - Not sure if we are allowed to distribute the javax packages, since we >> didn't pass the TCK yet >> (even though there is a disclaimer). I seem to recall reading somewhere >> (very vague, I know), that >> you cannot use the package name until distributed (geir or someone else >> who knows better, please >> correct me) > > > Geir has said it is ok: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-bsf-dev/200703.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] Totally missed / forgot that mail (trying to keep with a bit too much mail).. > > > - Are we allowed to redistribute the engines in bsf-engines ? Doest BSF > work >> without them ? > > > This is a point in time thing to make BSF useful without requiring uses do > extra downloads. I hope we can stop doing this in the near future by > implementing a core set of our own engines, or in the more medium term > future, i think script languages don't include a JSR-223 engine today as > there's no JSR-223 API impl available under a good license, so once BSF > passes the TCK script languages may start including their own JSR-223 > engine. > > I believe we are ok distributing them for now. They are under a BSD license > which according to the 3rd party licensing policy is a "Category A: > Authorized License". See: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html and > https://scripting.dev.java.net/. the license is good indeed.. com.sun packages still trigger some alarm bells, even though it was clear from the distribuation it was under BSD. :) (rather be safe to ask for confirmation than to be sorry :) > > - What is the distribution directory in the src zip / tgz ? > > > It contains the build scripts to build the bsf-all jar and for the maven > assembly plugin to create the bin and src distributions. ok.. > > - No site in source (maybe useful in dist?) >> - No javadoc in binary dist > > > These are both true. Next release? Also note that right now most Javadoc > comments just refer to the Sun docs, eg see: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bsf/trunk/bsf3/bsf-api/src/main/java/javax/script/SimpleScriptContext.java Also not useful for other bsf classes ? Not a blocker though for a beta release, would be nice to have javadoc for the final though. (I assume javadoc will be available online ?). Also with maven2 it's quite easy to create a javadoc jar and source jars (I like those to be available in the repository). (targets are source:jar and javadoc:jar). Willing to help out here if you like (it's pretty simple to configure) Mvgr, Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
