Re: dom1-core-jar works (was: Re: Build failed (dom1-core-jar))

You're right, too eager to do multiplications. it would indeed come to 
3+1 downloads if we go for common/separate (Java/ECMA) distributables 
with/without documentation.

I'd like us to take some kind of decision on how long to wait for input 
from Edward. So far, we've aimed at the end of January, beginning of 
February at the latest for releasing the DOM Level 1 Core TS.  I'd like 
for us not to end up too far from that.

So I propose to wait for another week at the most, ie. February 12th to 
incorporate any changes to the loading mechanism of JsUnit. In the 
meanwhile we should decide on what the distributions should consist of 
as well as sanity check, so far we have the following proposals:

1 XML source code, Java tests (JUnit), ECMA tests(JsUnit), Schema and 
DTD, matrix
2 XML source code, Java tests (JUnit), ECMA tests(JsUnit), Doxygen 
documentation for Java tests, Schema and DTD, matrix
3 XML source code, Java tests (JUnit), Schema and DTD, matrix + XML 
source code, ECMA tests (JSunit), Schema and DTD, matrix (2 downloads)
4 XML source code, Java tests (JUnit), Doxygen documentation for Java 
tests, Schema and DTD, matrix + XML source code, ECMA tests (JSunit), 
Schema and DTD, matrix (2 downloads)

Obviously all distributions will contain necessary documentation for the 
TS and a fist page describing options and so forth

People's views?

1: 0
2: [dd] 1
3: 0
4: 0

1: strong preference for
0: no preference
-1: strong preference against

/Dimitris

On Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 09:08 , Arnold, Curt wrote:

> I don't believe Doxygen produces documentation of ECMAScript code, so 
> there
> would be only one optional Doxygen download, not two.
>
> I expected to have heard from Edward Hiatt (the JSUnit guy) about
> incorporating the patches that I supplied.  Usually he has been very 
> quick
> to respond.  Obviously, asking end users to patch JSUnit is not a good
> solution and if we can't get the code (or functionally equivalent) into
> JSUnit, then we would probably back off the changes that eliminated the
> interdependency between locations of the tests and JSUnit.  However, I 
> hope
> it doesn't come to that.
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 16:34:29 UTC