My vote:
1. +1
2.b
I like Tom's idea also... but we only need a subset of the classes,
correct? Also, a way to change the package names (2.b) is good to
eliminate collisions that will occur for different versions of a class file
brought in by different components, never mind the original...
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
Russell
Butek/Austin/IBM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@IBMUS cc:
Subject: clutil.jar vs
excalibur-cli.jar - get rid of
03/18/2002 02:16 them!
PM
Please respond
to axis-dev
We've been discussing what to do with the clutil.jar vs excalibur-cli.jar
problem. The excalibur folks last week changed the name of clutil.jar to
excalibur-cli.jar. We didn't want to change this ourselves right before
the beta, so the beta is goind out with clutil.jar. But we have to change
it post beta.
But we really don't care much about keeping up with excalibur's version of
the cli. What we use works, it hasn't changed in months anyway, and it's
doubtful whether we'll ever care if it DOES change. So Tom suggested
getting rid of the dependency on a cli jar file by putting the files that
we need (4 of them) into the axis build tree and don't depend on the
excalibur builds. So a couple questions:
1. Do folks agree that this is a good idea? (If you don't agree, then we
will use excalibur-cli.jar)
2. If you do think it's a good idea, how should we package the files:
2.a. With their original names? (org.apache.avalon.excalibur.cli...)
2.b. Change the names so they're in org.apache.axis.utils...
2.c. Some other suggestion?
My vote is:
1. +1
2. b.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
