On 01.03.2006 03:55:45 thomas.deweese wrote: > 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?
It's the same as the BSD license with only a note about the use in a nuclear facility added. Should be fine. > > 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. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
