+1 if the NOTICE is fixed

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
>> >     <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >         > Hi,
>> >         >
>> >         > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
>> >         Apache
>> >         > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>> >
>> >         Some initial test results:
>> >
>> >         The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
>> >         Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
>> >
>> >         For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
>> >          http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118
>> >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> >         The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
>> >         Checksums all look ok.
>> >
>> >         Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
>> >         standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
>> >         lot more
>> >         credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
>> >         be wrong...
>> >
>> >         And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
>> >         should
>> >         probably be updated.
>> >
>> >
>> >     That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
>> >     I'll take a look.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
>> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
>> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
>> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >         I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>> >
>> >            <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
>> >            in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
>> >            uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
>> >            in our pom as runtime dependency  -->
>> >            <dependency>
>> >              <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> >              <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> >              <version>1.3.2</version>
>> >              <scope>runtime</scope>
>> >            </dependency>
>> >
>> >         I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
>> >         someone
>> >         wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
>> >         why should
>> >         we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>> >
>> >
>> >     This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
>> >     this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
>> >     someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
>> >     he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
>> >     it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
>> >     prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
>> >     of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
>> >     good to have a community point of view about it.
>> >
>> >
>> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
>> > dependency:
>> >
>> > <dependency>
>> >  <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
>> >  <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
>> >
>> >  <version>1.1.8</version>
>> >  <exclusions>
>> >    <exclusion>
>> >      <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> >      <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> >    </exclusion>
>> >  </exclusions>
>> >
>> > </dependency>
>> >
>> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
>> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
>> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>>
>> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
>> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
>>
>>
>> Regards, Simon
>>
>> --
>> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
>> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Reply via email to