Should we have a policy about announcing the addition of any new jar files,
and waiting some
pre-determined time before adding them into Axis. (?)
I don't have any problem with Glen's change.
Rich Scheuerle
XML & Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Glen Daniels
<gdaniels@macrome To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dia.com> cc:
Subject: RE: Heads-up / opinions? -
BCEL -> tt-bytecode
02/19/2002 07:50
AM
Please respond to
axis-dev
Hi Glyn!
> I'm a bit concerned about the license implications. I haven't
> read the BSD
> license, but presumably its terms and conditions are different to the
> Apache license that applies to the other jars which are
> checked in. This
> could affect people who want to reuse Axis. At the very
> least, you need to
> check in a license file alongside the tt-bytecode jar file.
Yep, I realized that as I was going to bed last night. Since tt-bytecode
doesn't come with an explicit license file, I've sent mail to the developer
asking for one. The BSD-style license is, I'm 99% sure, one of the
acceptable ones to Apache.
> Also, I guess Gump won't have access to the latest level of
> the tt-bytecode
> jar file, so problems may arise if people combine Axis with
> newer levels of
> tt-bytecode .
I don't think this is any worse a problem with tt-bytecode than anything
else. We can still track the development and interact with the developers
to get everything working just like we do with Apache projects. Also, I
note that we use JUnit, which has the same issue.
> Would a better strategy perhaps be to get bcel improved and
> possibly back
> off to using javap (or whatever preceded the user of bcel in
> Axis) for any
> missing features until then?
We can't back off to javap, since a) I would -1 it because it's gross :),
and b) we have an internal Macromedia team who needs to operate in
environments where javap is not available. Getting bcel improved is a
possibility, but the only real purpose it would serve in this case is to
"keep things in the family" as it were. Since tt-bytecode is distributed
under a "good" license, I'd rather stick with it (especially since we save
~200K vs. BCEL).
> Having said all this, I know you will consider the above
> issues and I trust
> your judgement, so I vote +0.
Okee! Thanks, Glyn.
--Glen
