I'll try to find some time to analyze this deeper to day and get back with a more definitive response.
Thanks, Greg On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Carol Frampton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 5/31/12 9 :22AM, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>"Having a similar setup for Flex would be ok IMO: download binaries from >>trusted sources by default, but allow people to supply their own binaries >>if they want." >> >>It would also make the step of mavenizing a SDK release obsolete. I would >>definitely vote for this (If I'm allowed a vote) ;-) >>I too would suggest to avoid binary dependencies. The problem is that >>Adobe patched quite a lot of Jars so substituting them with the default >>ones doesn't seem possible. And Adobe even stated that they will not >>publish their changes as the changes are far too ugly to be published. > > I believe you are talking about the velocity, batik and xerces changes. > The source of all these changes will be in the Flex src kit so the > modified jars are build as part of the Flex build. > > >>So mabe it is neccesary to distribute some libs in binary form, but I >>would assume that it would be better to check if it is actually nessecary >>to have patched versions at all ... I would assume that these patches >>were needed because of bugs in the third party modules and are eventually >>fixed or adobe used them third party libs wrong (Just an assumption). > > From my brief look at the changes it looks like we added some extended > functionality which the devs didn't believe were general purpose enough to > be contributed back to Apache. > > Carol >> >
