#9 no source code release

v1.0_(example)
open
nobody
None
1
2014-03-08
2014-03-07
No

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.

Related

Bugs: #9

Discussion

  • Robert Lancashire

    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

     
  • Robert Lancashire

    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

    Attachments
  • Michael Banck

    Michael Banck - 2014-03-07

    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 Lancashire

      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

      Attachments
      • Bob Hanson

        Bob Hanson - 2014-03-08

        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:

        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/
        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/


        Status: open
        Group: v1.0_(example)
        Created: Fri Mar 07, 2014 09:53 PM UTC by Michael Banck
        Last Updated: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:39 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/

        --
        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

        Attachments
  • Michael Banck

    Michael Banck - 2014-03-07

    The zipfile contains the hidden .svn-Directories, which are not needed for releases, and should be removed next time.

    But otherwise, thanks a lot!

     
  • Bob Hanson

    Bob Hanson - 2014-03-08

    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

     
  • Michael Banck

    Michael Banck - 2014-03-08

    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.

     
    • Robert Lancashire

      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

      Attachments
  • 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

     


Anonymous

Cancel  Add attachments





Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks