Hi, Robert, thanks for the patches. I'll apply them as soon as possible. I wasn't aware that I still had hardcoded paths, sorry for that.
> 1. i'd suggest that javadocs does not depend on all. this allows a > documentation build without having to compile the source. (i'd prefer not > to have to accept the web services developer kit evaluation license right > now.) I quite understand. Indeed I am also unhappy about the licensing issues. It may possibly be worth to discuss them even in a larger audience, for example on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have two solutions in mind: - The JAXB license doesn't allow to add the required JAXB jar files (which are only three very small files) to the CVS. It does however allow to add 7 or 8 quite larger files to a distribution. In other words, we'll have to build a distribution as soon as possible (we'll need a target like "distcheck" before). Once that is done, the JAXB files may be extracted from any binary distribution. - We'll omit the JAXB files completely and rebuild them from source. That won't be too much work, because the most files are simply interfaces and some of the default implementations (marshaller, unmarshaller, datatype- converter) are replaced anyways. The question is whether that is legal. A possible solution might be, to implement them in a separate package (net.sj.jaxme.jaxb, for example) and use some refactoring tool at build time to move them in place. (If that is legal, of course.) Regards, Jochen ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Jaxme-jaxb-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jaxme-jaxb-dev
