|Re: org.jivesoftware.smack31 (was Re: [ecf-dev] feature.xml IDs vs. folder names)|
Hi Markus, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 12/11/2009 06:08 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:The reason so was that we can/could also build the 2.2.0 version of smack. Since smack is not our codebase, using a branch for a single project would/could become rather complicated.Are you going to (actively) work on smack 2.2.0? If not, won't it be easier to just consume a pre-build bundle from an ealier ECF p2 repo?
RE: whether I or someone else is going to work on smack 2.2.0...I'm not sure...that's the main reason I left it there (I'm not sure).
Btw. have you thought about moving smack to Orbit? Might open it up to a bigger audience too.
I've thought about it :), but I don't have sufficient resources to do the Orbit add and maintenance work...so others can do that if they wish.
RE: build problems...not sure what you mean. I do understand that it complicates the build a little bit (the need to map to org.jivesoftware.smack31 project name for org.jivesoftware.smack bundle), but this doesn't seem like too much of a problem (?).I'm currently changing the build so that we don't need map files anymore. However Buckminster fails to find a project org.jivesoftware.smack with version 3.x because it does not recognize org.jivesoftware.smack31 as an alternative provider.
I assume that even without map files that Buckminster can associate org.jivesoftware.smack bundle name with org.jivesoftware.smack31 project path (i.e. rather than org.jivesoftware.smack project path). Is that not right?
And is the reason for removing the map files greater build simplicity? or are there other/more reasons? I'm all in favor of greater build simplicity, BTW...as long as we can do everything we need to do with our build.
Back to the top