Re: [Fwd: Re: [architecture] Re: JPackages and ObjectWeb]
David Walluck wrote:
> Eric Bruneton wrote:
> >I think so. I'm trying to update the ASM project to take these
> >guidelines into account (I attach the corresponding source
> > package). I think it follows items 1, 2, 3 (see
> > build.properties), 4, 5, 6 (see build.properties again), 7, 8, 9,
> > 10, 11, 14, 16 & 17. Tell me if something is still wrong.
>
> Next time, giving a URL to the source code might be better ;)
see the latest CVS version (I will tag it when everything is ok): 'ant
zip' creates asm-1.4.2.tar.gz and asm-1.4.2-bin.zip
> ``Make specifying the build classpath easy using either command
> line switches of property files (and document it).''
>
> currently we use `export CLASSPATH', how does this fit in? Note
> that a build.xml using only properties cannot easily be used with
> our `build-classpath' script.
I've kept the build.properties configuration mechanism (the discussion
about the classpath configuration does not seem closed yet?).
> For #12:
>
> Just what exactly is `clear versioning'. Here's how I see it
> (please comment):
>
> Unix versioning is usually name (lowercase), followed by '-',
> followed by a numeric version, e.g. x.y or x.y.z. Letters in
> version numbers are not recommended.
>
> The source code should be in a directory, not top-level like most
> zip files (I can't stress this enough---I don't know how many times
> I unzipped a pile of source code to my home directory).
>
> The directory should have the same name as the archive, i.e.
> name-version. Sometimes simply `name' is used, but it's not
> recommended.
>
> An ant task exists to do this for you.
>
> Sometimes, it's typical for Java developers to put *binaries* in
> the archive like this and append -src to the source archive. I
> don't recommend this. Instead, maybe append -bin to the binary
> archive and leave the -src archive as <name>-<version>.tar.gz.
I've taken these remarks into account.
> Similarly, we might go as far as to recommened that the jars
> produced have versions in them.
but not this one
> For #16:
>
> Concerning ASM: Here you have a README file that seems to have come
> from another package. Neither of the 4 directories reference exist,
I've updated the README files (they do not come from another package,
but from a generic project "template" - this is why the project is
not designated as "ASM" but as "the project"; they can be reused
without any modification for other projects).
> just a perf directory, and it's not referenced. Note that if these
> aren't unit tests, I don't think that the packager should run them.
they aren't
> Maybe we should add something to that effect? Of course, including
> any kind of tests you want is perfectly fine---I just want to
> clarify when they are part of the build process.
the tests are never run as part of the jar, dist or zip building
processes ('ant jar', 'ant dist' or 'ant zip'). They are run
separately ('ant test').
Eric
Reply to: