Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-02 Thread Mihai Chira
I wanted to add two things related to squiggly, in order of importance: 1. (Sorry if I'm stating the obvious:) There are two versions of the class SpellUI.as - one of flex projects and one for projects which don't include the Flex framework. We had a big problem when we tried to compile the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-02 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new step to the release verification process to create a project without Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex project. I think this is just a matter of including the right swcs and not all

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-02 Thread Mihai Chira
I hope so. But from what I remember (and I wasn't the main developer dealing with this), the flex version of the project depended on classes inside the non-flex version, which means that if the wrong compiler argument was used, it would also replace the flex-SpellUI with the non-flex-SpellUI. But

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-02 Thread Mihai Chira
? Chris Von: Mihai Chira mihai.ch...@gmail.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 12:42 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0 I hope so. But from what I remember (and I wasn't the main developer dealing

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, So given that the two objections you just raised we already comply with (ie That not all dictionaries out there are Category X and we do know of an English dictionary with an Apache compatible license) can we move forward now? Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Alex Harui
On 8/31/14 11:14 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, So given that the two objections you just raised we already comply with (ie That not all dictionaries out there are Category X and we do know of an English dictionary with an Apache compatible license) can we move forward

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the SCOWL dictionaries. No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all dictionaries are based on word lists in the public domian and/or licenses unencumbered by rights that would be incompatable with

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Erik de Bruin
This is another one for the (yet to be implemented) legal-disc...@flex.apache.org mailing list :-( Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible. Either agree to disagree and toss a coin, or ask someone who can break the tie to take a look, and move on, please. EdB On Mon, Sep

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Alex Harui
It's all very confusing to me. It isn't my call. I have asked for a ruling from legal-discuss. It is odd that other products like AOO haven't switched to this dictionary. Once they give us the green light, we'll be all set. -Alex On 9/1/14 12:04 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible. Nope in this case it's quite clear cut. Either SCOWL contains a Category X license or not. Every single other objection that has raised has been sorted by the discussion on legal and the current RC still complies with Apache

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Alex Harui
My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible. Should be over as soon as we get the ruling. -Alex On 9/1/14 12:14 AM, Erik de Bruin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible. And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release candidate. Unless

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Alex Harui
On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible. And that now been

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and http://hunspell.sourceforge.net. And in your view is this a blocker and requires another release candidate or can we fix in the next release? 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package? There is no

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, And ... when preparing the next RC ... if you could do a RELEASE run, we could stage our first Release as Maven artifacts too. The current SNAPSHOP needs to be reviewed first. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Alex Harui
Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly indicates the permissive license for English. Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone. Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, The concern: The README points folks to

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-09-01 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly indicates the permissive license for English. I really don't think you need to ask legal again but if you really feel you need to go ahead. We as a PMC should be able to decide, and in it's

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, We would have to bundle the source with the SDK and vote on a new SDK release. Wouldn't that also be in violation? And actually force the component to be non optional, unless you count having it installed but not using it as non optional? Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
What is preventing us from doing what Apache Open Office is doing here? http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/english-dictionaries-apache-openoffice Thanks, Om On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, We would have to bundle the source with

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, What is preventing us from doing what Apache Open Office is doing here? Basically they got special permission to bundle (L)GPL dictionaries, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117, but yes you right they also link to them. Lucerne does exactly what we are doing (as far as I

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Lucerne does exactly what we are doing (as far as I can see). Sorry wrong link - try this link instead: https://code.google.com/p/lucene-hunspell/ Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Or even better this link: https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_0_0/analyzers-common/org/apache/lucene/analysis/hunspell/package-summary.html Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Harbs
: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 31. August 2014 03:26 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0 Hi, Glad that it's now working :-) Well making a snapshop and the snapshop and 100% working may be two different

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, I’m not sure if there’s any way to include languages that optionally download at runtime. You specify the language via the SpellingConfig.xml files, that's loaded at runtime then dictionaries specified in that file are loaded at runtime. So you can have no dictionaries, user defined

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Eventually it could utilize Flex' runtime loaded resource-bundles? Not that I can see, the format, while text based, is very different. Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Alex Harui
The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not a separate file in the release artifact. IMO, we can link to link AOO or offer downloads in the ant scripts/installer. I think the second key question is, does the code that calls/uses the category X code/data need to be in

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not a separate file in the release artifact. It generated from the source and is in the release. IMO, we can link to link AOO Which is exactly what we are doing in the RC. Remember that the Flex SDK already has a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Alex Harui
I guess I don't understand. You think the PMC should vote to approve a release that only contains Squiggly? My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot. We have to bundle the code in some other release like the Flex SDK where it Squiggly's capabilities can be seen as an

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot. My understanding is that we can. Given other projects have done similar things with Hunspell lets move forward with the release and if and when Legal come back with a clear decision we can (if required) fix any issues they

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Alex Harui
I guess we see it differently. The two answers we got seemed to conflict. I've asked for clarification on legal-discuss. On 8/31/14 9:35 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot. My understanding is that we can.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, So given the reply on legal would now agree we can release as a separate package and we can move forward with the vote on the RC? Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Alex Harui
It still isn't clear to me. I asked for more clarification. Here are two parts of the last reply on legal-discuss: If you want just a spell-checker package, then that is fine. You just can't produce something that requires Category X (whether build or run time). First he says we can have a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-31 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, If you want just a spell-checker package, then that is fine. You just can't produce something that requires Category X (whether build or run time). And Squiggly doesn't require anything that is Category X. The dictionaries come in many licences, it just seems most are LGPL. This is no

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, From folks who have been in the ipmc longer and advise on whether this is a category x dependency. Looks like the question has already been answered, and it probably legal rather than incubator who would need to answer if we think it is an issue. 1.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, That was exactly what I was looking for ... thanks :-) I'm currently getting: [INFO] Scanning for projects... [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project - [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] The project [unknown-group-id]:[unknown-artifact-id]:[unknown-version]

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Alex Harui
On 8/30/14 1:51 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, From folks who have been in the ipmc longer and advise on whether this is a category x dependency. Looks like the question has already been answered, and it probably legal rather than incubator who would need to answer if

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, ant -f maven.xml Works for me now - thanks. Would start to deploy the SNAPSHOT artifacts to Apaches Snapshot repo. I have given that a try: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/flex/squiggly/ Want to confirm everything looks good in there? Given you

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Glad that it's now working :-) Well making a snapshop and the snapshop and 100% working may be two different things. Mind checking the contents for me? When running on the Apache Jenkins this automatically works. Good to know, but making a release is still a manual process right via

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi Alex, Given legal advice currently is: 1. If I cannot run Apache Flex without acquiring that (L)GPL data, then it violates the guidelines. 2. making it an optional feature is a great and perfectly acceptable solution 3. Flex's ActionScript spellchecker would not include the LGPL/GPL

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-30 Thread Alex Harui
There's a key question to be answered on legal-discuss, which is whether we are in violation of the guidelines by releasing a package that doesn't bundle or download Category X and just telling folks where to get the Category X data. Henri said Yes, Greg implied no (with the runtime-dependency

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Harbs
To use Squiggly, is the Hunspell dictionaries included at compile time or is it downloaded at runtime (or something else)? On Aug 29, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: I am wondering how Hunspell is integrated here? Was it a port from C++ to AS3? I'm not 100%

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Could someone here quickly write down how the squiggly artifacts depend on each other and extenal dependencies? Basically there are no complication dependancies other than you need the Flex SDK (ie mxml and asdoc) to compile it. The ANE not in this release would require air. Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, To use Squiggly, is the Hunspell dictionaries included at compile time or is it downloaded at runtime (or something else)? Hunspell is not actually required at all, a dictionary may be required (if specified) and that dictionary is in Hunspell format which is the same format as MySpell

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Hunspell format which is the same format as MySpell which is based on Ispell. And I should of said Ispell is ancient [1] - Ispell has a very long history that can be traced back to a program that was originally written in 1971 in PDP-10 Assembly language. That predates my

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, we have 7 swcs and I bet there are dependencies. Some of the swcs are dependent on the others. ApacheFlexLinguisticUtils.swc ApacheflexSpellingEngine.swc ApacheFlexSpellingFramework.swc - ApacheFlexLinguisticUtils.swc + ApacheflexSpellingEngine.swc ApacheFlexSpellingUI.swc -

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Doesn't that create a dependency on category x? Don't think so, it's more a dependency on a file format not a specific bit of software, basically the same as a font file. eg Flex (and users of flex) can use lots of different fonts, but we could only bundled a small subset of fonts that

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Alex Harui
Do you think we need confirmation before proceeding? I think we should. Practically speaking, how many folks will be able to use the release without downloading a category X file? For fonts, you can definitely use Flex without having to download a category X font. -Alex On 8/29/14 7:21 AM,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Do you think we need confirmation before proceeding? Confirmation of exactly what and from who? Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-29 Thread Alex Harui
From folks who have been in the ipmc longer and advise on whether this is a category x dependency. Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone. Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, Do you think we need confirmation before proceeding? Confirmation of exactly what and

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Alex Harui
When I was prepping the donation, I was thinking we'd send folks to Hunspell to get their dictionaries. We could provide links, or maybe the ant script can offer to fetch one (with notification of license differences first). BTW, I ran out of time tonight to look at the RC. I'll look in my

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
MD5 and signature looks good. Compiles fine I see some issues: 1. There are two README files, one here [1] and one under the 'main' directory after unzipping the src/binary kit. We should merge those two, to avoid confusion. 2. LICENSE file is incomplete (there is a TODO section in there) 3.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, 1. There are two README files, one here [1] and one under the 'main' directory after unzipping the src/binary kit. We should merge those two, to avoid confusion. Can do. 2. LICENSE file is incomplete (there is a TODO section in there) Git issue and it's been fixed, there's no

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, As we noticed with FlexUnit that simply releasing Maven artifacts of a previously released library isn't that easy (From Apache procedures ... the releasing itself is easy), I think we should think about releasing the maven artifacts together with the normal release. So how do we

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, When I was prepping the donation, I was thinking we'd send folks to Hunspell to get their dictionaries. Open Office extensions may be a better option being an Apache project? Looks like if you unziip an OO dictionary you get the files you need. We could provide links, or maybe the ant

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Well it's a SWC isn't it? Several swcs - look in the libs directory. Eventually all we have to do is write a pom with it's dependencies and an Apache header, repo, license block etc and manually stage that RC in the staging repo. Just the swcs or the code as well? Given this is

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Alex Harui
On 8/28/14 4:54 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, When I was prepping the donation, I was thinking we'd send folks to Hunspell to get their dictionaries. Open Office extensions may be a better option being an Apache project? Looks like if you unziip an OO dictionary you

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, 1. There are two README files, one here [1] and one under the 'main' directory after unzipping the src/binary kit. We should merge those two, to avoid confusion. Can do. Thanks! 2. LICENSE file

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, I am wondering how Hunspell is integrated here? Was it a port from C++ to AS3? I'm not 100% sure but from whatI can tell the AS version supports Hunspell dictionaries, and the ANE version (not in this release) uses Hunspell. I don't think there's a port of Hunspell in the current

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, 1. There are two README files, one here [1] and one under the 'main' directory after unzipping the src/binary kit. We should merge those two, to avoid confusion. Done 5. The apps under main/Demo/ does not seem to work Until we can package a dictionary I've removed them from the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, I'm wondering if any of the dictionaries have no GPL components. If we can't find one that does, that may mean that Squiggly cannot be its own release package. From a brief look I couldn't find one, so for now I think we just need to point people in the right direction. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Well it's a SWC isn't it? Several swcs - look in the libs directory. Eventually all we have to do is write a pom with it's dependencies and an Apache header, repo, license block etc and manually stage that RC in the staging repo. Just the swcs or the code as well? Given this is

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-28 Thread Alex Harui
Doesn't that create a dependency on category x? Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone. Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, I'm wondering if any of the dictionaries have no GPL components. If we can't find one that does, that may mean that Squiggly cannot be

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-27 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, A few things to consider: - More instructions on how to use would be useful (could we get permission to use content from here?) [1] - Do we need debug and non debug swc binary versions? - Do we require ASDocs to be part of the first release or can that wait until a later release? - Should

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-27 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, While not a blocker, the main inconvenience I see with the current RC is that is requirement the user to source a dictionary, as none were provided in Adobe's donation. While it easy enough to take one from Adobe's version of Squiggly that's not exactly optimal. What can we do about this?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-27 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, Just in case anyone needs a simple test to try it out: mx:Application xmlns:mx=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml; layout=vertical mx:Script ![CDATA[ import com.adobe.linguistics.spelling.SpellUI;

RE: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

2014-08-27 Thread Glenn Willianms
Great I have a largish project im maintaining that uses it and will grab rc0 and see how it goes. Thanks for taking time to get this into good shape glenn -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: 28 August 2014 02:13 To: dev@flex.apache.org