I'll try to help directly and keep things moving for this week.
I hence propose to:
- change the script to "$@", I am positive moving to "$1" "$2" is what
you wish (the quote gets removed by the script-invocation, see PS for a
test)
- drop or not drop classpath whichever you wish.
- also, in the archive, as noted:
- the scripts are in Windows end-of-lines
- the x-bit in the tar.gz for the bin/jelly is missing (and in the
zip if possible, ant allows that)
- make a README for binaries saying which taglibs are installed and
that extensibility is either done by hand following dependencies or
using src.
An example I made is at:
http://people.apache.org/~polx/README-binary-jelly.txt
Brett, I really hope not to kill your efforts! Sorry to look so
"constraining". Do tell me if I should either commit this or let you do
so so that it streams in the releases...
Btw, how can, in a vote, be answered: "yes with the changes made
already" as opposed to the release-candidates presented in the home
page ???
paul
PS: here's a test for $* vs "$@":
<j:jelly xmlns:j="jelly:core">
Arg[0] is ${args[0]}.
Arg[1] is ${args[1]}.
Arg[2] is ${args[2]}.
</j:jelly>
If invoked with binary-delivered bin/jelly with the parameters "a b"
"c" it gives the output:
: Arg[0] is /tmp/blop.jelly.
: Arg[1] is a.
: Arg[2] is b.
If the bin is changed to "$@" you get the output:
Arg[0] is /tmp/blop.jelly.
Arg[1] is a b.
Arg[2] is c.
Le 14 juin 05, � 01:59, Brett Porter a �crit :
Paul - thanks for your feedback, comments below. Can I ask you to
formally vote on the vote thread, too - do these comments lead to a -1
(hold the release until fixed), -0 (prefer them fixed, but not
essential) or +1 (these can wait until next time) ? This *has* to be
on the [vote] thread.
I'll also point out I have limited time to work on this now, and
starting with JavaOne I'll be away for 3 weeks - so either this is out
this week, someone else steps up to finish it, or it waits until
August. I'm not in anyway trying to influence the vote here - just to
give necessary perspective and make sure we keep moving.
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
My first comments on the binary:
- packaging is simple and straightforward, that's good!
- last line of the sh script should have "$@" around instead of $* I
believe
(otherwise you don't allow spaces in parameters, should I commit
this?)
I thought it was correct ("$@" expands to "$1" "$2" ... which I don't
think works when $1 is already quoted, but I may be wrong).
- do we not want to include an "endorsed" directory since it would
allow to circumvent the shipped parser and a possibly too old version
of xalan??
... or require 1.4 for the standalone and get rid of all of them and
halve the distribution size :)
In the current situation, I think the JDK 1.4 or JDK 5.0 parser will
be used which is probably a good thing (at least with 5.0 it has a
newer Xerces built in). From what I can tell, Jelly works just fine
under the built in parsers of these JDKs.
- I would resign to take in account an existing CLASSPATH variable in
the script ... it tends to add unpredictability. People can still
hack the script if they wish.
I don't really mind either way.
- the README is for the source... we need to have one for the binary,
or?
It should include:
- which taglibs are included (not sure of the list, looks like xml
is not for example)
- which examples can be run
--> about this, I feel we should include examples, or maybe
examples with URLs ??
- how to download (and install) more taglibs (if possible)
--> about this, I fear forehead will not support this... why not
use shell
script to define the classpath using a command that takes all jars
in the
lib directory ? (or let it be with extensibility and refer to the
source for it,
not very nice)
This seems reasonable, though I'd hope the site gives them enough info
and is easy enough to find. I think the one README can be used for
both, starting with the binary instructions.
But really, I don't have the time to spend on this, this week.
... just to catch up quickly on talk exchanges about the
documentation inclusion: I think we should include the produced
web-site in both the source and binary distribution since it cannot
be built with either of them.
You can build the documentation in the source with "maven xdoc".
Perhaps the README should be adjusted accordingly.
Sorry for the late replies.
Better late than never! :)
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
