Most other apache communities vote on jar changes, this allows not only the opportunity to voice concerns but because of how mailing lists are archived allow people to find a relative time frame of potentially important changes which helps track down bugs. For some reason Apache OFBiz doesn't vote on these sorts of things. Apache OFBiz -dev mailing list has had a total of 10 threads with the term [VOTE] in the subject (8 of which in regards to test releases)
I'd like it if we could discuss this policy adoption for the Apache OFBiz project and then vote on adhering to it. In regards to the parent thread... Because of the "black boxiness" of jar use, shouldn't there be an actual _reason to add, update, or delete a jar that relates to how it's used in the community project? If there's a feature desired, an important bug addressed, or noticeable increased efficiency, then great, we should vote on upgrading. However, I don't think it's necessarily wise to be updating for updating sake. Especially given the number of external dependencies Apache OFBiz has --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have a lot of libraries in OFBiz, and it's a pretty major effort > to keep them all updated but certainly something we need and want to > do. > > Sometimes it is hard to test the updated library, and that is the > case with itext since most of the stuff that uses it is buried in > things like the CompDoc stuff in the Content Manager and running > through a test scenario to use itext to combine PDF documents is > somewhat involved. In these circumstances we can kind of go either > way, either: > > 1. leave the old version so that it will more likely work the next > time someone uses it > 2. update to the latest version so that new things and things in > general will more likely work, and version dependencies between > libraries in OFBiz won't as likely become a problem > > So, for this one they both have pluses and minuses. The best thing is > > to update and test everything that uses it, but that takes a lot of > time and effort (both finding everything that uses it, and running > the tests). > > In other words, it's up to you, I'm fine with either way and somewhat > > favor #2... > > -David > > > On Apr 6, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > > > And now I'm also running the latest itext-2.0.1.jar instead of the > > > older version in the trunk (itext-1.3.6.jar) and everything seems > > good. > > Should we plan to update also the iText jar? > > > > Jacopo > > > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> David, > >> yeah dependencies can be a nightmare... and maybe we should even > >> try to document them in some way somewhere. > >> However, PDF are printing fine even without the MinML2.jar and so > > >> possibly the jar was needed by an older version of iText. > >> What do you think? > >> Jacopo > >> David E. Jones wrote: > >>> > >>> Weeding out jar files is a tricky business... that one, for > >>> example, is used by itext if I remember right and is a runtime > >>> dependency. Removing it would cause problems for certain things. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >>> > >>>> After removing the framwork/webapp/lib/MinML2.jar file I could > >>>> build and run succesfully OFBiz. > >>>> > >>>> Can we remove it? For what is it used that jar? > >>>> > >>>> Jacopo > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >
