Michael,
I hope I have all the SCR included in the 2 folders in JSV_SRC.zip
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 05:39 PM
To: [jspecview:bugs]
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about it and did not want to imply no source was available at all!
I saw the subversion repository, but it would be nice to have a source code release along with JAR-releases in the future.
I think what Michael is saying is that in general we could be packaging
the source. Michael, there really is no plan to do that. Anyone seriously
interested in the source should be using SVN to access it, and that access
is there. The code is all merged with two other projects for production
(Jmol and JSmol), and there are two projects, JSpecView and JSpecViewLib,
so it's considerably more complicated than just quickly putting "the source
code" together.
That said, if you are interested in the source code, we are interested in
you. What are you working on? Is this in relation to Debian?
Michael,
I hope I have all the SCR included in the 2 folders in JSV_SRC.zip
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 05:39 PM
To: [jspecview:bugs]
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about it and did not want to imply no source
was available at all!
I saw the subversion repository, but it would be nice to have a source
code release along with JAR-releases in the future.
Robert, I think what Michael is saying is that in general we could be packaging the source using an ANT task.
Michael, there really is no plan to do that. Anyone seriously interested in the source should be using SVN to access it, and that access is there. The code is all merged with two other SourceForge projects for production (Jmol and JSmol), and there are three sub-projects - JSpecView, JSpecViewLib, and JSpecViewAndroid, so it's considerably more complicated than just quickly putting "the source code" together.
That said, if you are interested in the source code, we are interested in you. What are you working on? Is this in relation to Debian?
Bob
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
About your last question: yes, this is in relation to Debian (and Ubuntu, because Ubuntu just takes the Debian packages). Debian/Ubuntu are currently stuck with Jmol-12.2 because JSpecView is not available as a package.
So short digression: is it easily possible to build Jmol without JSpecView?
About your other remarks: Yes, the subversion repository is available, but it contains huge amount of problematic stuff, like .jars, .zips which extract files over other files already in the repository (in data/), various PDFs to papers which do not look like they are Open Access and/or have corresponding source files with them etc.
If you do not want to make releases (or make releases, but only binary ones), that's fair enough, you are the maintainers. I was just suggesting you should reconsider the current approach, which certainly works well for people just taking the binary .jars, but not so well for Linux distributions.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Michael,
The latest efforts are to develop for JavaScript/HTML5 and becoming less dependent on Java.
The merge with JSmol and working with JSME are parts of this effort.
As Bob noted, the SRC code I posted may not be sufficient since we are re-using routines from JSmol/Jmol.
You will need to pull files from the SVN repository to compile the .js or .JAR files
In keeping with SF open policy the PDF's are all open and from IUPAC showing the JCAMP-DX specs.
I'm still not clear what you are doing.
If you are interested in helping with development or wanting to generate web pages for teaching etc.
For teaching, we have plenty demo files set up showing the capability of JSmol/JMOL/JSpecView, none of these require JAVA at all
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 10:50 AM
To: [jspecview:bugs]
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
About your last question: yes, this is in relation to Debian (and Ubuntu, because Ubuntu just takes the Debian packages). Debian/Ubuntu are currently stuck with Jmol-12.2 because JSpecView is not available as a package.
So short digression: is it easily possible to build Jmol without JSpecView?
About your other remarks: Yes, the subversion repository is available, but it contains huge amount of problematic stuff, like .jars, .zips which extract files over other files already in the repository (in data/), various PDFs to papers which do not look like they are Open Access and/or have corresponding source files with them etc.
If you do not want to make releases (or make releases, but only binary ones), that's fair enough, you are the maintainers. I was just suggesting you should reconsider the current approach, which certainly works well for people just taking the binary .jars, but not so well for Linux distributions.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
Anonymous
-
2014-03-08
This makes perfect sense to me.
We synthesize these sources when we build JSmol, so that's probably the place we should be getting the Jar file data.
JSpecView.jar contains
javajs
jspecview
netscape
org/jmol
You just need the source for jspecview, right? Because the others are included in Jmol.jar from Jmol itself.
That is, in our build process for Jmol, we unpack all the libaries and only take the unique pieces for Jmol.jar. javajs, netscape, and org/jmol are all disregarded.
What we should do is just include those in the general tar file for Jmol. As it turns out, I'm releasing that today. So if this works for you, I will include the jspecview source in that. OK?
Bob
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Michael,
All the latest source code is available on SF
http://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/svn/HEAD/tree/dev2/
try the CODE menu then dev2 the JSpecView and JSpecViewLib
and pull/checkout from the svn
If you are looking for a zip of all the source instead I’ll try to sort out a copy under the Files menu soon
since the last zip was Nov 2013
Robert
Michael,
All the latest source code is available on SF
http://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/svn/HEAD/tree/dev2/
try the CODE menu then dev2 the JSpecView and JSpecViewLib
and pull/checkout from the svn
If you are looking for a zip of all the source instead I'll try to sort out a copy under the Files menu soon
since the last zip was Nov 2013
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 04:54 PM
To: Ticket 9
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
[bugs:#9]http://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/ no source code release
Status: open
Group: v1.0_(example)
Created: Fri Mar 07, 2014 09:53 PM UTC by Michael Banck
Last Updated: Fri Mar 07, 2014 09:53 PM UTC
Owner: nobody
I cannot find a source code release (tarball or zip), only jars.
As jspecview is a dependency of Jmol, a proper source release would be very much appreciated.
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Bugs: #9
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about it and did not want to imply no source was available at all!
I saw the subversion repository, but it would be nice to have a source code release along with JAR-releases in the future.
Michael,
I hope I have all the SCR included in the 2 folders in JSV_SRC.zip
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 05:39 PM
To: [jspecview:bugs]
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about it and did not want to imply no source was available at all!
I saw the subversion repository, but it would be nice to have a source code release along with JAR-releases in the future.
[bugs:#9]http://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/ no source code release
Status: open
Group: v1.0_(example)
Created: Fri Mar 07, 2014 09:53 PM UTC by Michael Banck
Last Updated: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:01 PM UTC
Owner: nobody
I cannot find a source code release (tarball or zip), only jars.
As jspecview is a dependency of Jmol, a proper source release would be very much appreciated.
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Bugs: #9
I think what Michael is saying is that in general we could be packaging
the source. Michael, there really is no plan to do that. Anyone seriously
interested in the source should be using SVN to access it, and that access
is there. The code is all merged with two other projects for production
(Jmol and JSmol), and there are two projects, JSpecView and JSpecViewLib,
so it's considerably more complicated than just quickly putting "the source
code" together.
That said, if you are interested in the source code, we are interested in
you. What are you working on? Is this in relation to Debian?
Bob
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Robert Lancashire rjlanc@users.sf.netwrote:
--
Robert M. Hanson
Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
If nature does not answer first what we want,
it is better to take what answer we get.
-- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
Related
Bugs: #9
The zipfile contains the hidden .svn-Directories, which are not needed for releases, and should be removed next time.
But otherwise, thanks a lot!
Robert, I think what Michael is saying is that in general we could be packaging the source using an ANT task.
Michael, there really is no plan to do that. Anyone seriously interested in the source should be using SVN to access it, and that access is there. The code is all merged with two other SourceForge projects for production (Jmol and JSmol), and there are three sub-projects - JSpecView, JSpecViewLib, and JSpecViewAndroid, so it's considerably more complicated than just quickly putting "the source code" together.
That said, if you are interested in the source code, we are interested in you. What are you working on? Is this in relation to Debian?
Bob
About your last question: yes, this is in relation to Debian (and Ubuntu, because Ubuntu just takes the Debian packages). Debian/Ubuntu are currently stuck with Jmol-12.2 because JSpecView is not available as a package.
So short digression: is it easily possible to build Jmol without JSpecView?
About your other remarks: Yes, the subversion repository is available, but it contains huge amount of problematic stuff, like .jars, .zips which extract files over other files already in the repository (in data/), various PDFs to papers which do not look like they are Open Access and/or have corresponding source files with them etc.
If you do not want to make releases (or make releases, but only binary ones), that's fair enough, you are the maintainers. I was just suggesting you should reconsider the current approach, which certainly works well for people just taking the binary .jars, but not so well for Linux distributions.
Michael,
The latest efforts are to develop for JavaScript/HTML5 and becoming less dependent on Java.
The merge with JSmol and working with JSME are parts of this effort.
As Bob noted, the SRC code I posted may not be sufficient since we are re-using routines from JSmol/Jmol.
You will need to pull files from the SVN repository to compile the .js or .JAR files
In keeping with SF open policy the PDF's are all open and from IUPAC showing the JCAMP-DX specs.
I'm still not clear what you are doing.
If you are interested in helping with development or wanting to generate web pages for teaching etc.
For teaching, we have plenty demo files set up showing the capability of JSmol/JMOL/JSpecView, none of these require JAVA at all
Robert
From: Michael Banck [mailto:mbanck@users.sf.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 10:50 AM
To: [jspecview:bugs]
Subject: [jspecview:bugs] #9 no source code release
About your last question: yes, this is in relation to Debian (and Ubuntu, because Ubuntu just takes the Debian packages). Debian/Ubuntu are currently stuck with Jmol-12.2 because JSpecView is not available as a package.
So short digression: is it easily possible to build Jmol without JSpecView?
About your other remarks: Yes, the subversion repository is available, but it contains huge amount of problematic stuff, like .jars, .zips which extract files over other files already in the repository (in data/), various PDFs to papers which do not look like they are Open Access and/or have corresponding source files with them etc.
If you do not want to make releases (or make releases, but only binary ones), that's fair enough, you are the maintainers. I was just suggesting you should reconsider the current approach, which certainly works well for people just taking the binary .jars, but not so well for Linux distributions.
[bugs:#9]http://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/ no source code release
Status: open
Group: v1.0_(example)
Created: Fri Mar 07, 2014 09:53 PM UTC by Michael Banck
Last Updated: Sat Mar 08, 2014 03:32 PM UTC
Owner: nobody
I cannot find a source code release (tarball or zip), only jars.
As jspecview is a dependency of Jmol, a proper source release would be very much appreciated.
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jspecview/bugs/9/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Bugs: #9
This makes perfect sense to me.
We synthesize these sources when we build JSmol, so that's probably the place we should be getting the Jar file data.
JSpecView.jar contains
javajs
jspecview
netscape
org/jmol
You just need the source for jspecview, right? Because the others are included in Jmol.jar from Jmol itself.
That is, in our build process for Jmol, we unpack all the libaries and only take the unique pieces for Jmol.jar. javajs, netscape, and org/jmol are all disregarded.
What we should do is just include those in the general tar file for Jmol. As it turns out, I'm releasing that today. So if this works for you, I will include the jspecview source in that. OK?
Bob