Start unstable branch. Was Re: [JAWIN] JAWin install

It's a good idea to make a jawin_ver_1-branch.  We can discuss this more
next week when your back.  Hopefully it will also give Robert and others
time to catch these emails:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Andersen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [JAWIN] JAWin install


> Hi Roger
>
> 1) I have uploaded the refactored documentation to the Jawin mainsite:
> http://jawinproject.sourceforge.net/ - I cross my fingers that I have
> not created any dead links.
>
> 2) I have build the 1.0.19 and uploaded it to the upload.sourceforge.net
> ftp-server, but I need you to perform the last few steps, as described
here:
>
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6445&group_id=1#createrelease
>
> (the uploaded file is named: jawin-1.0.19.zip - I think it will be
> present for the next 24 hours on the release server).
>
> I suggest something like the following for the release and change notes
> (according to the SourceForge documentation, they should be set on the
> "Step 1" section?):
>
> Notes:
>         Binary release of Jawin 1.0.19.
>         MD5: 86f05b8abaf95e7ed02f2382e986a904 jawin-1.0.19.zip
>
>
> Changes:
>         - Deprecated the com.develop.jawin source and moved to org.jawin
(Roger
> I Martin and Paul Marquis).
>         - New tool for stub generation: Jawin Type Browser (Josh Passenger
and
> Roger I Martin).
>         - Refactored documentation to document the org.jawin branch
(Morten
> Andersen).
>         - Refactored build to match the org.jawin branch (Morten
Andersen).
>
> For the full release history please see:
>         http://jawinproject.sourceforge.net/jawinrevisions.html
> .."
>
> I have not uploaded any source-files. But hopefully I will get around to
> making an ant target for building a src-release within the next couple
> of days.
>
> With regard to considerations about refactoring the marshalling, I must
> admit I have already started slightly on that. Well, there are so
> extremely many religious holidays in the spring in Denmark, so I had
> some spare time. So what started out as a task to delve into some of the
> Jawin classes and write some more Javadoc, evolved into refactoring some
> of the marshalling for the Dispatch-code (amongst other things, I think
> I added full support for SafeArrays, both [in] and [out]). To make sure
> I did not create (to many) errors, I started by updating the JUnit
> test-cases to test the org.jawin tree of the source. And I also added a
> few new test-cases that gives an indicative time for certain calls
> (something like calling the same native method X-thousand times), which
> hopefully will be of good use if/when refactoring for speed with java.nio.
>
> Unfortunately I newer got around to check my changes in to CVS, because
> I must admit I broke a few of the existing "contracts" for the
> interfaces. So before the checkin, I would ask here on the mailing list,
> whether we should set out for eg. a 2.x version of Jawin, so we are
> "allowed" to break existing behaviour. A good way to do that would
> probably be to create a jawin_ver_1-branch in CVS, so that small fixes
> could still be applied to stable version 1.x, while we develop the
> unstable version 2.x on the HEAD of the CVS - with any changes we would
> like.
>
> If you, Robert, Josh and others think we should do this, we should
> perhaps do a quick brainstorm here on the mailing list of what we would
> like to change from today (unfortunately I am out of town during the
> coming weekend, otherwise I could have posted a starting suggestion-list
> - now I probably won't find time for it until some time next week)?
>
> Best Regards
> Morten
>
> Roger I Martin PhD wrote: