Just to provide a bit of background...here is the change log for bsf http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/bsf/trunk/CHANGES.txt?revision=449377&view=markup
Has anyone tried just adding bsf version 2.2 instead of 2.4? It appears from the change log that the namespace was changed in 2.3 and there were several improvements to debugging that were made in 2.2. However, that may introduce copyright issues that were corrected in 2.3 as well. --- Si Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about we make a branch called "newbsf"? We can > put all the > changes for the new bsf jars there, and if Adam ever > shows up with a > new jpublish then we can merge it back in? > > On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:11 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > > > > I am not opposed to this. > > > > It would have been nice if this had come up as an > approach during > > earlier and ongoing discussions as quite a few > changes have now > > been made to exclude JPublish (it would have to be > put back into > > the NOTICE/LICENSE files, the Libraries Included > in OFBiz page, > > removed from the OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES and change > build files, code, etc. > > > > We would also need to keep a repository or at > least a patch and how- > > to somewhere so the jar file could be reproduced. > > > > -David > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Si Chen wrote: > > > >> David, > >> > >> We and some other people we work with all have > OFBIZ-based > >> applications from the ofbiz 3.x days which are > jpublish-based, so > >> to remove jpublish from the SVN and put in > something which is > >> incompatible with it basically breaks all of our > applications and > >> forces us to start to diverge from the core ofbiz > code base in a > >> way that we don't want to. > >> > >> I know what you mean about jpublish being not > actively maintained, > >> but the flipside it seems just to work ok for us, > so we don't need > >> to do too much for it. > >> > >> I guess if we can coordinate with Adam Heath to > get a new bsf- > >> compatible jpublish in the SVN then everything > will be fine. > >> Until then, are you planning to do something with > the new bsf > >> modules? Could it wait until Adam finds it in > his kindness to > >> send us an updated jpublish that he keeps > promising? > >> > >> On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:13 PM, David E Jones > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Do we really want to do this? Part of the reason > we wanted to > >>> remove JPublish is that there doesn't seem to be > much a community > >>> around it and no one is maintaining it. > >>> > >>> In other words, if we want it in OFBiz, we have > to maintain it... > >>> Unless it is really useful for something, I have > a big problem > >>> with that... > >>> > >>> So, I guess in order to decide it would be good > to know what > >>> you're planning on (or have done) with JPublish > that wouldn't > >>> work with other things... and then see if that > justifies > >>> maintaining JPublish. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Si Chen wrote: > >>> > >>>> When do you think you can send this in? > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Si Chen wrote: > >>>>>> David, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I see that you've removed jpublish so that > the newer versions > >>>>>> of bsf can > >>>>>> be integrated. What can we do to put > jpublish back into the main > >>>>>> repository? Is there a newer version of > jpublish which would > >>>>>> work well > >>>>>> with the newer bsf stuff? We have a lot of > things which require > >>>>>> jpublish, including some ajax-related stuff > we were going to > >>>>>> contribute > >>>>>> back. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've got a fixed jpublish I need to send in. > I downloaded the > >>>>> version > >>>>> that ofbiz is using, and did the > s/com.ibm.bsf/org.apache.bsf/ > >>>>> fix. > >>>>> Seems to work locally. > >>>>> > >>>>> Just been so busy. > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Si > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Si > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > Best Regards, > > Si > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
