DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9688>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9688 [SUBMIT] JavaNcssTask [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-06-24 09:06 ------- Sorry Stephane - I guess I've not done a very good job of explaining myself. Let me try again. The existing JavaNCSS Ant task does not provide the same functionality as the one I wrote. The existing task allows boundary checking to be performed on metrics but does not enable the generation of a report; mine generates a report but does not allow boundary checking. The existing task uses the JavaNCSS API and so requires JavaNCSS libraries to be present at compile time; the task I submitted here just calls the commandline interface so the libraries are required only at runtime. This should also avoid any issues with JavaNCSS being GNU GPL. I still don't quite understand why you're unhappy with a JavaNCSS task in optional.jar yet are comfortable with the JDepend one. Both tasks are just wrappers for the commandline tool. Both JDepend and JavaNCSS are distributed as jar files. Both underlying tools use a different licence from the Apache one. I really can't see any difference between the two. What set of criteria must a task meet for it to be included in optional.jar? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
