Rick Bullotta wrote:
From a user view, not a committer view, of course, there is one (I
think) minor packaging change that could be made which would make life
easier for users/deployers. If the 1.6 build (and ideally the binaries)
had a "batik-all.jar", which simply provided a single-jar deployment
option, it would be quite nice. Just a thought...
There is already an 'all-jar' target that builds one large
jar file. It is true that we don't include this in the binary
release. This is sort of intentional as a toolkit there are
several large pieces that are independent of each other, so
it really isn't a great idea to just grab everything unless
you are really using most of it (although it is admittedly
convenient).
Rick Bullotta
CTO
Lighthammer Software (http://www.lighthammer.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas DeWeese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:49 AM
To: XML Graphics PMC
Cc: Batik Users; Batik Dev
Subject: [VOTE] Release of Batik 1.6
Hi PMC,
I am requesting a vote on releasing Batik 1.6.
I have created a tag "batik-1_6" that indicates the code
under consideration. All issues raised on batik-dev (basically
just comments on problems with javadocs) have been addressed.
Sorry, I don't seem to be able to track down the thread on
mail-archives.eu.apache.org.
I consider there to be one potentially known bug with regards
to setting documents on the Canvas, I believe the bug has been in
Batik since it's last release 1.5.1 and had, to date, not been
noticed. I considered it more risky to try and fix at this point
than to leave the code as is:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34234
The only other issue I can think of is that the current LICENSE
files for pdf-transcoder.jar and xerces_2_5_0.jar are the old 1.1
Apache License. I will update the pdf-transcoder license to the
2.0, I am unsure if I can do that for xerces since I think the
jar we are using was released under the 1.1 license, and I would
rather not update the jar at this late date - Opinions?
Also along these lines there was some question on the Rhino
License (Mozilla) when Apache adopted the 2.0 license, last I
heard we could continue to use it, but things may have changed
without me knowing about it.
Any other comments or concerns?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
