Re: java-getopt

["Raif S. Naffah" <raif@fl.net.au>]

At 09:02 AM 9/4/01 -0400, egagnon@j-meg.com wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:14:27AM +1200, Mariusz Nowostawski wrote:
> > Etienne: feel free to change all the legal-related stuff, and add Raif to
> > appropriate files - CVS is all yours now.
>
>OK, I have added Raif to the list of authors.  But, before you make a new
>release, we need to do 2 things:
>1- add the getopt source package into the sablecc source package (ant stuff),
>and,
>2- we need to make a final decision about the .jar thingny...

i'll finish the getopt stuff since i started it.  but i need some 
decisions.  provided java-getopt classes are not embedded in the sablecc.jar:

1. the getopt package comes all in one piece.  i can separate the source 
from the .class + other needed files to build a pure .jar file that gets 
used by sablecc.  the alternative would be to use it as is.  in both cases 
the manifest will be written to expect the java-getopt.jar to be at the 
same level as the sablecc.jar.  (to me it makes more sense to keep it as is)

2. renaming java-getop-xxx.jar to just java-getopt.jar (doing that in ant's 
build.xml is trivial) would protect against future versions of java-getopt, 
that are feature-compatible with those used by sablecc, from requiring a 
re-packing/change to the sablecc distribution.  any objection to following 
this scheme?


cheers;
rsn


>Personally I like the "automatic .jar dependency" feature of newer jdks, as
>it seems cleaner than exctracting individual classes and adding them to
>sablecc.jar.  We could do the same for the sablecc-ant stuff.  What do
>you think?
>
>Etienne
>--
>Etienne M. Gagnon                                    egagnon@j-meg.com
>SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
>SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/