Paul Fisher wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm. So does that mean it would be pointless to attempt to upgrade
> > the work I have done to the beta4 spec?
>
> From a paperwork standpoint, we can probably use the SableUtil code.
> However, I haven't started all the wheels in motion, because I'm
> unsure if its worth the effort.
>
> I need to know:
> a) the quality of the SableUtil code
> b) how much code do we lack from having the features that SableUtil has
> c) does it make any sense to finish the work on our Collection API
So, am I allowed to look at the SableUtil code before returning to work
on our code? Also, doesn't the LGPL imply that the code can simply be
shared with the classpath code, under the terms of the license? I don't
understand the GNU licenses very well :(
> I haven't had time to gather all this information. I do know that
> SableUtil isn't 100% compatible with the Collection API, and they
> only implement the following classes:
[classes snipped]
This appears at first glance to be a subset of the collections API plus
several classes that are of their own design.
> Stuart, do you have time to research this information and advise on
> what I should do? btw, if you need a copy of SableUtil, it's over at
> http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/sablecc/sablecc.jar.
I'll have a look, probably at the weekend. I can't promise to be able to
dedicate much time to the project but I should be able to take a good
look at the code and try to work out if it's worth using.
> > but if an entire java.util is going to come along from another
> > group, it would probably be a waste, right?
>
> As far as I know, SableUtil doesn't have any plans to implement the
> entire java.util library -- they're just the Collection API.
Well, that's all that I've been working on to date.
> I'll send you a personal email explaining the new CVS stuff...
Thanks :)
Stuart.
