Re: Spice Dependency (was: RE: Spice License)
Stephen McConnell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.phoenix.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Noel J. Bergman wrote: >Stephen, > > > >>I have reviwed all occurances of the usage of the excalibur CLI package >>that I was able to identity across the CVS repositories >> >> > > > >>In each case the CLI usage patterns were consitent with the >>functioanlity provided by the Jakarta Commons CLI package. >> >> > >So you are representing that there are no functional issues in terms of the >code? > No functional issues. Furthermore, the Commons CLI includes greater functionality than the Excalibur CLI package. >Am I to understand that the ONLY issue is that Jakarta Commons CLI >has some additional external dependencies that would require more jar files? > If the Commons CLI package is used in a manner equivalent to the Excalibur CLI package you can use the commons CLI jar without any other jar file (which is perfectly acceptable when the usage of the CLI code is not exposed - as is that case with all usages of Excalibur CLI that I was able to idetify). In other words - the dependency argument is technically missleading. If anyone wants to see a dmonstration that proves this - just let me know and I will post links as appropriate. >If that is the only issue, how hard would it be to reduce or eliminate those >are requirements, and leave them as optional? > Its already possible - just leave out the depedent commons-lang jar file. It is only required if you want to parse command line expressions into Java objects (which is accademic relative to the set of features common to the Commons/Excalibur solutions). >And if that were done, does it eliminate the reasons not to migrate? > AFAICS thare arre no reasons not to migrate. Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[email protected] http://www.osm.net