Help save net neutrality! Learn more.
Close

#81 JavaDoc fixes

Java extensions
closed-fixed
XSL (122)
5
2006-04-27
2002-09-24
No

This patch fixes some copy&pastos in the extension
JavaDocs as well as updates Xalan2 and Saxon URLs.

Discussion

  • Ville Skyttä

    Ville Skyttä - 2004-11-13

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=32457

    Here's an updated patch including more fixes. Please apply.

     
  • Ville Skyttä

    Ville Skyttä - 2004-11-13

    Extension javadoc fixes

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    Ville,

    I'll look at these patches and first apply in my
    sandbox without committing to CVS.

    Then, I will give you a standalone build of the
    extensions for Saxon 6 and Xalan 2. At that time, I'd
    like to ask you and whoever else from the JPackage
    project to check it and comment on it.

    I made some minor changes to your build.xml file. For
    one, I changed jar file names to docbook-xslt-saxon6.jar
    and docbook-xslt-xalan2.jar. Part of the reason is
    that Norm has added extensions for Saxon 8. So when
    those are released standalone, it seems like the name
    docbook-xslt2-saxon8.jar will make sense.

    I also added README, RELEASE-NOTES.html and
    RELEASE-NOTES.txt files and VERSION files.

    I have suggested to the DocBook project team that we
    start releasing the DocBook XSLT Java extensions as a
    separate package; if I get an OK from the team, we will
    probably do a docbook-xslt-java-1.5 release next week.

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • milestone: --> Java extensions
    • assigned_to: nobody --> xmldoc
     
  • Ville Skyttä

    Ville Skyttä - 2004-11-14

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=32457

    Ok. In JPackage, we cannot rename the jars without
    providing backwards compatibility symlinks, and I don't
    actually see a compelling reason to rename the existing
    ones. How about just leaving the old ones as is, and just
    adding saxon8? By the way, we will most likely not be
    providing the saxon8 jar in JPackage, because Saxon 8 is not
    free software. I updated our docbook-xsl-java package to
    1.67.0 yesterday, it's in the "devel" section and will be
    released soon, probably next week, along with the rest of
    JPackage distribution version 1.6.

    A separate package for the java extensions would be nice,
    but I'd like to ask you to not go backwards with the version
    number (current 1.67.0, new 1.5 as you suggested) as this
    will cause all sorts of upgrade problems that need special
    attention.

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    Ville,

    Thanks for the reply. OK, based on your feedback, I
    guess that if/when we do that standalone release, it'll:

    - retain the same jar file names as in the build.xml
    file you included

    - not include Saxon 8 extensions (if those are
    released, I guess it would make sense to make them
    a separate docbook-xsl2-java package)

    - be version-numbered so as to not cause JPackage
    upgrade problems

    But about the last point: If we release the upstream
    package as a standalone package, I personally think it
    does not make any sense to version it with a four-digit
    version number like that of the docbook-xsl package.

    It's not necessary and worse yet, it is misleading in
    that it implies it is in sync somehow with the
    docbook-xsl versioning, which it won't be & need not be.

    What about numbering it using a simple single-digit
    numbering scheme, starting with, say, docbook-xsl-java-5 ?

    Will that be a problem? If so, can you please suggest a
    version-numbering convention that will work for you all?

     
  • Ville Skyttä

    Ville Skyttä - 2004-11-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=32457

    Thanks for your time and consideration.

    Regarding the version numbering scheme of the possible
    standalone package, I have no strong opinions as long as it
    keeps increasing at every release, and if possible, also at
    the transition (1.67.0 -> XXXX) time. I don't see any
    problems with the suggested single-number naming scheme; if
    you feel comfortable with it, just go ahead.

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    • status: open --> closed-fixed
     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    A fix for this issue has been added to the current codebase.
    Please test the fix with the latest snapshot from:

    http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    A fix for this issue has been added to the current codebase.
    Please test the fix with the latest snapshot from:

    http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

     
  • Michael(tm) Smith

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=118135

    A fix for this issue has been added to the current codebase.
    Please test the fix with the latest snapshot from:

    http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/

     

Log in to post a comment.