Thilo Goetz wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 7/30/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
-1 to this change. What exactly is the concern here?
My main concern is what I originally said: "Don't some companies have
issues with their people downloading source code?"
Does that concern a large corporation that some of us work
for, or is this a known concern for other companies, too?
I only know the specifics for corporations that I happen to work for.
:) Without knowing for sure that it *isn't* a problem for others, I
think it's a risky move to eliminate our binary-only release.
Addressing the convenience issue of dealing with our source release,
could we whip up a script that would add the right source files to the
right jar files? It wouldn't even need to compile anything so
shouldn't have a dependency on anything but the "jar" command line
tool.
Sure, that would be fine. It's an additional thing to maintain (as
opposed to the 0-maintenance maven magic ;-), but maybe that's not such
a big deal.
I also like this idea. Ideally, it would work so the user would have
minimum impact.
The minimum I could think of would be for the user to download one
additional
thing and run one command. It would be good if the user didn't have to
remember to specify some long path...
Maybe we can figure out how to have Eclipse help us here. I wonder if
this could be packaged as a feature using the update site mechanism. It
seems to me
that many Eclipse technologies come packaged with the source as separately
downloadable things. Of course, the downside would be that this
wouldn't support the
non-Eclipse, alternate IDE user.
So - maybe a first step would be to have all the source in one zip,
available for download, together with a small readme that gives step by
step instructions on how to
a) create an Eclipse "library"
b) attach the source
(Step (a) makes it so you don't have to re-do this for every project.)
-Marshall
-Adam
