RE: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5

["Russo, David" <d-russo@xxxxxx>]

Doug and team,

The following CQs are outstanding:
    3269  Mozilla Rhino Version: 1.6R6 (PB CQ1694)
    3270  antlr Version: 3.1.1
    3271  xmlbeans Version: 1.0.4
    3272  java tar Version: 2.5

The first two are, in my opinion, uncontroversial and I'd advocate a +1 for these.

I'd appreciate the team's comments on the others.  I've tried to fairly represent the issues below.

3271: xmlbeans 2.3 is already approved, but our tests with Rhino (which requires xmlbeans for its E4X support) work with 1.0.4 and break with 2.3.  The RTSC team needs to spend time to determine the root cause and possibly work around the issue in our use of Rhino.  My preference is to get 1.0.4 approved to avoid destabilizing RTSC (it's likely a problem between Rhino and xmlbeans that the RTSC team may never fully understand), but I understand the community desire to piggyback on the already approved xmlbeans 2.3.

3272: Martin rightly pointed out that several other projects in eclipse already embed tar support.  The "cleanest" appears to be the tar support in ant.jar, but this jar is 1.3M compared to 25K for java tar.  java tar 2.5 is public domain, small, and sufficient for RTSC needs.  Moreover, we are under considerable pressure to reduce XDCtools footprint.  So, I see three options:
    1. push for java tar to be approved;
    2. subset ant.jar, taking only the tar support and any of it's 
       prerequisites; or
    3. copy tar support from other projects into RTSC.

I strongly prefer to take pre-built solutions and hate cut-copy-paste coding, so #3 is a last resort.  Even #2 worries me from a maintenance point of view.  Subseting someone else's distribution requires work that can easily be undone by a simple update of the original distribution and, as a rule, the RTSC team avoids doing this.  

On the other hand, this seems to be what other eclipse projects do.  I see this being done with ANTLR (which surprised me) so perhaps I should do the same with ant?  Is it common practice to subset other open-source distributions to create a custom set of jars within eclipse?  

Since java tar 2.5 is small, self-contained and we could reuse its binary distribution, I opted for #1 above.

If you've read this far, I'd appreciate any comments or guidance you may have.

dave


-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:16 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5

Hi Dave,

Please send a summary email for all of your open CQ's that the PMC needs
to vote on. We can vote on all of them and then reference the vote in
the CQ's.

Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:15 PM
To: dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] [CQ 3272] java tar Version: 2.5

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3272


Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
                 CC|
|barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
|barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx




--- Comment #7 from Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>
2009-05-06 17:13:38 ---
Hi David,

This one is waiting for PMC vote on it as well.  

Thanks.

Auto-Generated Text:  IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.


-- 
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc