Salikh Zakirov wrote: > If we do not include suncompat.jar into classpath at compile > time, rather than runtime, then the users will get > the feedback at approprate moment of time. > > So, I would suggest > + include suncompat.jar to runtime classpath by default > - do *not* include suncompat.jar to compile-time classpath by default
That's a very nice solution. None of the arguments have swayed me about not having it at runtime because while I agree that it's bad practice, our biggest interest *at this time* is to get users, because users are going to be an enormous help in finding bugs, prioritizing what we are working on, etc. And removing every speedbump in the road to using harmony is going to help that. We will be in a great position to help people stop this misbehavior, as *when they are interested*, they can simply remove suncompat easily and quickly due to our great modularity... I think we can use this problem to our advantage... geir > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> Oh - definitely only add as needed, and yes, we need to have good >> documentation to assist users. >> >> And I'm very +1 about including this by default for now. See other >> threads as for why. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
