I may have missed this discussion before, if so, please point me to the thread ...
DUCC includes a website that is provided by running a web server (Jetty, I think - is that right?). The site makes use of many javascript libraries (jquery and so forth). When building the website, the current design I think incorporates the javascript libraries as part of the web project's "binary" build artifacts. It does this by building from a copy of the javascript sources in our svn source tree; these have been put there manually; as I understand it, this is because there wasn't a "maven central" kind of artifact that could be incorporated at build time. (I do see some jquery maven artifacts, but I'm not sure these are the "packaging" that you want). Reading on the internet indicates that jquery comes with some "packaging" things that let you incorporate /exclude the parts you need, and then you can do some kind of optimization (I'm guessing) to prepare a faster-to-load version of it for your application. I'm guessing we don't do any of that (yet) (maybe for a future release?). If we don't do any of that, I'm guessing there are several alternatives for arranging to use these kinds of javascript libraries: 1) copy the library sources into our SVN, and package these in the binary build. In this case the web pages DUCC serves would use references to the "built" subdirectories where these reside to load from. 2) Have the web pages DUCC serves use references to some standard places on the web where these libraries reside. For instance, using <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js";> 3) Have the web pages DUCC serves use references to another standard location under the control of the Apache UIMA project. This could be our Apache UIMA website, or the main Apache distribution point (say, the same place where we put the Eclipse Update Site). Has this been discussed and intentionally decided on? I'm thinking the team picked (1). As far as I can tell (reading through several discussions on other lists) it's OK to have Apache-compatible licensed sources in our svn, and these libraries are licensed with the MIT license. And they are currently packaged under a separate SVN folder, which is nice. So maybe this is not an issue that needs resolving, but I'm posting it in case others want to chime in, or clarify the intents. -Marshall
