Le 4 oct. 04, à 15:36, Ben Anderson a écrit :
you make a valid point. I had just copied that interface from the
jakarta-taglibs project. It is an interface - not a class. I'll admit, I
don't know too much about licensing. I was just assuming that it's legal to
create a physical manifestion of interfaces defined by Sun.
It's perfectly legal. Licenses tend yo restrict people at transmission times... download such an interface's class-file may be the time when this get restricted. For example, the servlet 2.1 API license (at least when downloaded from Sun) had a license claim that said that the licensee can redistribute the jar along with your own product at latest 180 days after the latest release of the servlet 2.1 API!
JCP outcomes licensing has been a hot topic and I don't know wether that's really set...
The actual
implementation is done in an anonymous inner class. How else would we stick to
the standards defined by jstl? Isn't this the whole point of the JCP? The
community defines the spec, which can be implemented by anyone. As a side
note, the servletapi in the maven repository does not contain this interface.
Essentially the only difference in not having this dependency vs. having it is
the namespace. The dependency doesn't change, it's just whether the name is:
javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core.LoopTagStatus
or
org.apache.commons.jelly.whatever.LoopTagStatus
But the class-name is irrelevant for Jexl... do you need anything else than jexl (or any other reflection-based system) ?
paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
