Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't going anywhere.
-Nathan On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a conversation > with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems very > unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There is > apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing > development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release > candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone > available to build one. > > In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an > non-release build into Harmony? > > Thanks, > > Sian > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01034.html > > > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :) > > > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed > > > features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see > > there > > > that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily. > > > > > > I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch > > to > > > unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was > 2 > > > years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years > > due > > > to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very > > high. Also > > > the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect > > that > > > much of the class library. > > > > > > However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is > unlikely, > > but > > > as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will > do > > that > > > first. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Sian > > > > > > > > > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Does latest available sources support all the needed features? > > > > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current > > > > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to > > > > bleeding sources.. > > > > > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > > > > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest > > released > > > > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the > Java > > 5 > > > > class > > > > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement > pack200 > > (and > > > > also > > > > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have > > > > one). There > > > > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's > > much > > > > active > > > > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information > about > > when > > > > a > > > > > possible 5.3 might be released. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available > > source for > > > > > BCEL. Does that sound possible? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Sian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > number > > > > > 741598. > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, > Hampshire > > PO6 > > > > 3AU > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > number > > > 741598. > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > > 3AU > > > > > > > > > -- > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >
