Sian January wrote: > In the last week I've finally had some time to look at replacing BCEL > with ASM in pack200. I preferred ASM over SERP or any other options > mainly because it is really small (43K) and also has good performance. > So I've done some prototyping work and I'm fairly confident ASM is > suitable, although there could potentially be future problems with the > fact that ASM doesn't give access to the constant pool itself and just > inlines the constants, so I've tried to write my code in a way that > means it wouldn't be too hard to replace it if more functionality was > needed at some point. > > So I'm planning to check in my initial work this week if no-one has > any objections. As we're not using ASM anywhere else at the moment is > it ok to just check the jar file in under the pack200 directory, or > should it be in the depends directory and have a manifest instead?
As a rule we pull in third party dependencies from the 'fetch-depends' target -- to make it clear that this is code people are getting under a different license etc. However, if the download site necessitates it you can check it into our SVN under the depends directory. > Is there anything else I need to do for bringing in BSD licensed > code, e.g. any notices or license files or source that also need to > be added? Read the license :-) You need to reproduce their specified text in our distribution. We do that via the THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.txt Regards, Tim
