Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:44 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
The pdf-plugin will not work with 0.8 as is because it was decided
to move critical libs from the plugin back into core.
I must have missed that. Why were they moved back in?
I think there was a misunderstanding.
commons-io-1.3.1.jar -> should go into the plugin (because other code
does not seem to need it)
commons-logging-1.1.1.jar -> tricky since in 08 we have
commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
xmlgraphics-commons-1.2.jar -> not in 0.8 but needed by the plugin
(should go into the plugin)
No misunderstanding as far as I can tell.
In the message http://marc.info/?l=forrest-dev&w=2&r=1&s=r618371&q=b
you wrote
That should not include common libs:
[...]
The following needs to be in core:
Removed:
forrest/branches/UpdateFOPto094/lib/core/commons-io-1.3.1.jar
forrest/branches/UpdateFOPto094/lib/core/commons-logging-1.1.1.jar
forrest/branches/UpdateFOPto094/lib/core/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2.jar
and so I moved these libs back into core.
And I think they should remain there now because _current common use_ is
not really a useful criterion for placement of these libs. Somewhere
along that road we'd start moving libs back into core when the next
plugin requires them.
Not if we get out act together and use IVY to retrieve libs. In this
case not neither core nor plugins would require libs to be bundled.
Your earlier approach makes a lot more sense to me. Place all libs that
could be of a common use in lib/core right away.
-0
I think that to have your FOP enhancements available in 0.8 without user
intervention is important.
If I had the time to do the IVY migration I'd be -1 on the above, but
I'm not sure I have the time right now - hence only a -0
IMO the plugin should work in 0.8 if the libs go back. We can release
the plugin in version 0.3 (compatible with 0.8) and then raise the
version to 0.4.
So I propose to _copy_ the missing libs into the plugin, publish it as
0.3 requiring Forrest 0.8, then remove the libs from the plugin and
publish it as 0.4 requiring Forrest 0.9.
+1
The only weak spot in proceeding like this is the difficulty of doing
bugfixes (which are certainly to be expected) in the 0.3 version.
Be sure to tag 0.3 and, if necessary, we can branch it for bug fixes.
Ross: Is there really no way of maintaining two versions of a plugins
sources in our svn? We'd really need it in this case!
That's what branches are for.
Ross
