Quoting Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it > because of license > > incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and > non-Apache. > Harish, > > It isn't only an issue with OGNL, it is a general issue which has been > bubbling away for months. > In principle it is not good to have Jars in CVS. In practice it makes life > much easier for many people.
It also makes it more difficult for many other people -- especially those that need to integrate lots of open source projects (with overlapping dependencies) together. The goal here is to ensure that all the modules you want to create are built with (and tested with) the *same* versions of the common dependencies, not the ones whose jars happen to be checked in to CVS for that particular module. You still need mechanisms to allow the developer to override the default decisions checked in to the build scripts. For nearly all of the "I've checked in jars for the convenience of developers" packages I've evaluated for use fail to allow such overrides, and hard code their build classpaths to point at the checked in JARs only. > There are moves afoot to produce some kind of > jar download site which would provide the convenience of automated > downloads with Ant or Maven, and comply with licence issues, and not > require jars to be in CVS, cvs is not great at handling binaries. > > d. > Craig McClanahan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
