2009/9/28 <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do you disagree about my conclusions re cyclic dependencies in this scenario? > > I don't disagree with your reasoning. I do think that circular deps > are part of the universe and there are ways to finesse the situation > (which, I claim, is the best we can do). > > Assume Caja exports "caja-parse.jar" which is some minimal parser > schmivit. Project "jsdoc" can include this, and package it in its own > distro. Project Caja can then re-import the whole thing and run it > from Ant with "fork=true" so that the CLASSPATH is not polluted. That > way, also project "jsdoc" and Caja can evolve independently.
Does fork=true work on ant verbs other than junit? > Alternatively, Caja can just pull in *only* the jsdoc stuff from > project "jsdoc" and snapshot a tested version of "jsdoc" that works > with the current Caja parse tree. If the Caja parse tree changes in a > way that breaks "jsdoc", then that's something to negotiate -- > essentially it means that Caja broke "jsdoc" and the resulting woes > are visited upon all users of "jsdoc" including Caja. > > But again -- I really don't want to hold this up looking for a more > perfect solution (whether or not there is agreement that "my" > solution(s) are more perfect). I believe we should just proceed and > see how things look. > > Ihab > > -- > Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA >
