On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 18:45 +1000, Brett Porter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> There are release candidates here:
> http://people.apache.org/~brett/commons-jelly-1.0-RCs/
Hi Brett,
Here are some comments..hope they are useful.
====
After unpacking the -src.tar.gz, I went into that directory and ran
"maven" and got the following error message:
org.apache.maven.MavenException: Error reading XML or initializing
....
--- Nested Exception ---
java.io.FileNotFoundException: Parent POM not
found: /home/simon/downloads/commons-jelly-1.0/parent-project.xml
====
You might want to consider making the -src distributions unpack into a
-src directory. The isn't the default behaviour for Maven, but it is
conventional for a number of commons projects. This is just a suggestion
though...
====
I think there should be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file in the root dir of the
distribution that describes what has changed since the last downloadable
release - which appears to have been labelled "1.0-RC1" and made
available in Nov 2004. This helps people who are upgrading from the
previous release to the new one. In particular, it needs to list any
changes that might break existing code.
====
As part of recent updates to commons-build there was some discussion on
the maven.repo.list attribute, and it was decided that "apachecvs" was
not a good name choice. The file commons-build/project.properties.sample
now uses "apache.snapshots" and "apache.releases" instead. You might
want to consider doing the same....
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=111691300615388&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=111691583020008&w=2
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-build/trunk/project.properties.sample
====
The Ant build went fine (though as Steven mentioned, the NOTICE.txt file
should be in the META-INF of the generated jarfile). I tested this using
sun java 1.5, 1.4.2 and 1.3.1 on linux.
====
I notice that in the binary distribution, the "lib" directory has a copy
of all the jelly dependencies already.
This is unusual for commons, but then I guess no other commons project
is meant to be "runnable out of the box".
However I do notice that all these bundled libs are very old. Are these
libs the dependencies as listed in the project.xml? Those entries will
of course be the *oldest* versions that are compatible with jelly. When
distributing Jelly, however, it might be a good idea to provide the
*latest* jars rather than the *oldest* jars. On the other hand, that
means providing jars that the unit tests weren't run with so maybe not.
Worth thinking about anyway...
====
The bin/jelly script file is not executable in the binary distribution.
Also, it would be nice if this file would automatically set JELLY_HOME
to $0/.. if not already set when run.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
