I'm working on a local copy. So far I haven't changed much code in the
extension. The extender is a separate project, because it could be be
used without the extension.
Given time I'm planning to add a better code editor. But first I have
to overcome some idiotic problems in Eclipse.
Greetings
On 09/28/2011 01:29 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Carl Marcumcmar...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting
language.
For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic language for the JVM that
includes
Hi,
I'm currently working on updating the Groovy for OpenOffice.org
extension. I already have included the latest Groovy library.
Currently I'm writing an extender, that allows to access functions and
properties without imports and casts. I still have to overcome a few
stumbling blocks, but I hope
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote:
On 09/26/2011 10:31 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
snip
As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong) the way to think of it is like
this:
1) When we use a binary in the project (a 3rd party library) then
having it be ALv2 or
On 9/27/2011 8:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
...snip...
I think the difference between binary and source use in AOOo is
important. When we bring source into the project we are inviting
other project members, as well as our downstream consumers, to invest
their own time into that code base, to maintain
Hello;
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Shane Curcuru wrote:
..
I.e. there are cases where Apache projects may want to
include Category-B (EPL, CPL, MPL, etc.) tools within a
distribution. This is permitted in binary form, but
not source form.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but dmake as we have
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote:
Hello;
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Shane Curcuru wrote:
..
I.e. there are cases where Apache projects may want to
include Category-B (EPL, CPL, MPL, etc.) tools within a
distribution. This is permitted in binary form,
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Hello;
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Shane Curcuru wrote:
..
I.e. there are cases where Apache projects may
want to include Category-B (EPL, CPL, MPL, etc.)
tools within a distribution. This is permitted
in binary form, but not
distribution alone does not raise license-compatibility
issues.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffu...@tutopia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 09:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
[ ... ]
Concerning the external sources that we still carry: would
source tarballs of MPL/LGPL stuff be considered binary form?
This is mostly what we do today so it would solve
most of our issues (gettext
, September 27, 2011 09:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
[ ... ]
Concerning the external sources that we still carry: would
source tarballs of MPL/LGPL stuff be considered binary form?
This is mostly what we do today so
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
...
Another point that Rob brought would be if we need a
SGA
to add the Groovy (or other) extension.
I would think an SGA is a rather extreme thing to
require
for extensions: we wouldn't require that if we want
to
include
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
...
Another point that Rob brought would be if we need a
SGA
to add the Groovy (or other) extension.
I would think an SGA is a rather extreme thing to
--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
...
Bringing it into SVN is easy. Making it into a
release is another
question. To do that requires going through the IP
Clearance process.
Yes, I was obviously referring to the legal requirements.
I'm willing to debate it for
Hi,
On 09/27/2011 03:02 AM, Andor E wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on updating the Groovy for OpenOffice.org
extension. I already have included the latest Groovy library.
Currently I'm writing an extender, that allows to access functions and
properties without imports and casts. I still have
On 09/27/2011 06:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
i have to confess that i have completely missed this extension until today.
It shows again the power that we have to support scripting languages that
are based on the JVM. I like it.
I think a good selection of scripting options for the
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting
language.
For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic language for the JVM that
includes features like closures, builders, and dynamic
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.orgwrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting
language.
For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic
Hi all,
I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting
language.
For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic language for the JVM that
includes features like closures, builders, and dynamic typing.
There is currently a Groovy For OpenOffice extension [2] for this
Hi;
I like it. I've been thinking that we should campaign moving
opensource extensions to apache-extras, as it could make
things easier for maintainers if they don't want to sign
an ICLA.
Of course I won't complain if you think it's better to include
this directly.
Pedro.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011
On 09/26/2011 10:31 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Carl Marcumcmar...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting
language.
For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic language for the JVM that
includes features like
On 09/26/2011 10:41 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
I like it. I've been thinking that we should campaign moving
opensource extensions to apache-extras, as it could make
things easier for maintainers if they don't want to sign
an ICLA.
Of course I won't complain if you think it's better to
22 matches
Mail list logo
