Re: [ldap-sdk-discuss] Source code

[Neil A. W. <nei...@un...>]

On 05/25/2014 03:24 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Neil A. Wilson
> <nei...@un...> wrote:
>> On 05/09/2014 04:23 PM, Neil A. Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2014 03:30 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Please make the checkstyle target optional, you can do this
>>>> via condition using property on its target.
>>
>>
>> I have just committed a change that allows checkstyle processing to be
>> skipped if the "checkstyle.enabled" property is set with a value of "false"
>> (e.g., "./build-se.sh -Dcheckstyle.enabled=false").
>>
>> I'm still not entirely sure why this is necessary, or even useful.  The only
>> time it would possibly be of any benefit would be if you're maintaining your
>> own fork of the LDAP SDK, in which case you could just update your own copy
>> to not do checkstyle processing (or, alternately, you could just write code
>> that meets the checkstyle requirements).  At any rate, the change wasn't
>> difficult so it's there now.
>>
>
> Thank you!
> I was kind of hopping you remove the all of the binaries from the repo
> and have this false by default.

This is quite simply not going to happen.

The repository is set up to make it as easy and convenient as possible 
for someone to build the LDAP SDK.  When you check out the SDK, all you 
need to do is run one shell script or batch file, and less than a minute 
later you have zip files and unzipped directories containing the 
Standard Edition and Minimal Edition.  You don't have to go hunting for 
any other dependencies or components and worry about potential version 
mismatch, which is something I personally find frustrating even if they 
aren't hard to find.

If you have an aversion to using the libraries provided in the 
repository, then you don't have to use them.  But I'm not going to 
sacrifice convenience just to avoid offending your ideas about how an 
open source project should be run.  I have absolutely no flexibility on 
this matter and do not wish to discuss it any further.


Neil