We should use jarjar: http://tonicsystems.com/products/jarjar/
Bob
On 6/13/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about doing what Sun does with Xalan for Java 5 and rename XWork
packages? With the changes we are making to XWork 2.0, I don't think
it will co-exist with WebWork 2.2.2/3
Very tempting if it wasn't GPL :(
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
We should use jarjar: http://tonicsystems.com/products/jarjar/
Bob
On 6/13/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about doing what Sun does with Xalan for Java 5 and rename XWork
packages? With the changes we are making to XWork
It's a tool though, so it won't be distrubuted. If it's a big issue,
I'm sure we can talk Chris into something. Chris?
Bob
On 6/13/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very tempting if it wasn't GPL :(
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
We should use jarjar: http://tonicsystems.com/products/jarjar/
Bob
I'm not sure how easy it would be to change the license, but that really
shouldn't be necessary. As you say it is just a build tool so there is no
need to distribute the source, or even have the source checked in. I did a
few quick searches and found:
ASF projects can use GPL/LGPL code during
On 6/14/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Theoretically, I agree with you. However, pushing a project through
Incubation takes a lot of work, and we are already stretched trying to
get a stable Action 2 release out. In order to meet our August target,
we have to get the feature scope
Is this really an issue? If users are running WW2.2 with Struts2
everything should be fine, so this case will be only when running WW2.0
or WW1 with Struts2 - correct? And it would only be a problem when
running in the same web application (and thus same class loader).
I'll probably get
Is this really an issue? If users are running WW2.2
with Struts2
everything should be fine, so this case will be only
when running WW2.0
or WW1 with Struts2 - correct? And it would only be
a problem when
running in the same web application (and thus same
class loader).
I'll
If that is the case, then jarjar seems to be a great solution. Anyone know if
it has a Maven 2 plugin?
Don
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
I'm not sure how easy it would be to change the license, but that really
shouldn't be necessary. As you say it is just a build tool so there is no
need to
I don't think JarJar fixes the root problem: 2 API level incompatible libraries
(Xwork 1.x and Xwork 2.x) with the same packages. Just because we fix it for
SAF2 doesn't fix it for anyone else that wants to use XWork 2 and WebWork 2.x
separately.
What about doing what Sun does with Xalan for Java 5 and rename XWork
packages? With the changes we are making to XWork 2.0, I don't think
it will co-exist with WebWork 2.2.2/3 very well, if at all.
Therefore:
com.opensymphony.xwork
will become:
If XWork were at Apache, it's hard to see it as anything but
'org.apache.xwork'. Is that not possible?
I think XWork truly deserves to stand on it's own (like it does
today) and not be tied to anything else. Surely it can live as a TLP
at Apache can it not?
--
James Mitchell
On
Theoretically, I agree with you. However, pushing a project through
Incubation takes a lot of work, and we are already stretched trying to
get a stable Action 2 release out. In order to meet our August target,
we have to get the feature scope wrapped up in the next few weeks, and
start
I see, so short term, you want to repackage XWork with all the latest
changes under a new package name, but leave it at OS.
And looking long term, XWork ('org.apache.xwork') as an official
subproject under Apache Struts ;) ??? I'd vote +1
--
James Mitchell
On Jun 14, 2006, at 12:42
How about com.opensymphony.xwork2? :)
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=34229messageID=66656#66656
-
To unsubscribe,
I'd be fine with that too.
Don
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
How about com.opensymphony.xwork2? :)
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=34229messageID=66656#66656
15 matches
Mail list logo
