Hi Cameron,
Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/28/2006 07:55:33 PM:
> Can it be assumed that the Rhino debugger is always present? Since
> js.jar is in the repository, I'm wondering if the safe construction of
> the Rhino debugger in JSVGViewerFrame is necessary.
When I first added the debugger I thought the debugger was a separate
jar file. I coded the whole thing as if it were a separate
'optional' jar file. I remember at the time that I was surprised to
see that it was part of the 'js.jar'.
Now I understand the situation, the debugger depends on code from:
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/
The build appears to automatically download the code! (I probably
would have missed it again this time but I was behind the kodak
firewall and it blocked the download). Thus it appears that the 'js.jar'
includes additional code under this license:
http://developers.sun.com/license/berkeley_license.html
I don't think this is a problem (anyone agree/disagree?)
but it needs to be documented. Do we just add the Berkeley text to
LICENSE.js.txt documenting what classes are covered?
> In my investigations to update to Rhino 1.6R2, I've found that the
debugger
> has changed a bit and now the debugger frame is not the same as the
> org.mozilla.javascript.tools.debugger.Main class. To get access to the
> frame to mess with the menus as is currently done, I need to extend the
> Main. This isn't (easily) doable without assuming it is always present,
> though.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cameron
>
> --
> Cameron McCormack ICQ: 26955922
> cam (at) mcc.id.au MSN: cam (at) mcc.id.au
> http://mcc.id.au/ JBR: heycam (at) jabber.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
