Re: [Kernow] Saxon 9?
Brought to you by:
ajwelch
From: Andrew W. <and...@gm...> - 2007-11-05 13:11:01
|
On 05/11/2007, Florent Georges <li...@fg...> wrote: > > I was thinking maybe we should create a lib folder > > alongside src and put all of the dependant jars in there, > > so you have everything that's needed when you do a fresh > > checkout. If you agree - can you do it? (Im away from my > > home machine and would have to re-download them all...) > > It's annoying at the moment when you check out kernow onto > > a new machine and then have to hunt down exist.jar ant.jar > > bounce.jar etc.... > > Maybe. That would remove the need to reference the same > library names. Actually, nbproject/project.properties > already references such a directory: > > file.reference.exist.jar=lib/exist.jar > file.reference.xmldb.jar=lib/xmldb.jar I was going to do that a while back but never actually committed the jars (but must've committen the project.properties).... I think we'll still need to use libraries because the source and javadoc pointers? As in, we can't just add the jars. > But those JAR files are not commited. What I wonder is > how to handle versionning. Should we have JAR files as: > > saxon9.jar > saxon9-s9api.jar > saxon9-xqj.jar > ... > > or rather: > > saxon9-9.0.0.1.jar > saxon9-s9api-9.0.0.1.jar > saxon9-xqj-9.0.0.1.jar > ... > > or: > > saxon/9.0.0.1/saxon9.jar > saxon/9.0.0.1/saxon9-s9api.jar > saxon/9.0.0.1/saxon9-xqj.jar > ... > > Regarding the SVN repository history, I think there is no > big difference, because they are binary files so the whole > files will be kept in the history anyway. > > Maybe the last one is the more clean/clear. The original > file names are untouched, but the version is clearer > indicated. > > If you agree, I will commit the changes to run with Saxon > 9, then refactor dependencies to use the lib/ directory and > add the required (and only the required) libraries, within > versionned directories (3rd solution above). yeah sounds great - thanks Florent. |