ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Landers <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Fix for VAJ4
Date Fri, 02 May 2003 13:04:26 GMT

Hi Folks,

Francois: Don't bother writing mock classes, I've done so already. I'll
attach the jar-File to the Bug-Report. (Hope you haven't started yet...)

> Perhaps the only useful thing from my patch is an update of the
> installation steps (VAJAntTool.html): if we have compiled classes
> distributed with Ant, why bother with importing Ant and Xerces in VAJ?

Great you've update that part of the documentation (which I didn't).

> I propose the following:
> - I try  Martin's patch on my environment (VAJ 4.0 on NT4)
> - Martin: can you see if my documentation patch to the installation
> procedure also works on your side?

Sounds good!

 I'll check your documentation when I come back to work (where I have
access to VAJ) on Monday, but I guess it's going to be fine. Stefan: When
committing my patches (maybe after Francois has verified they work for
him), could you also submit the patches for (VAJAntTool.html)  from

> Regarding the distribution, Martin proposed 3 options for resolving the
> issue of using the VAJ servlet classes (which are not distributed with Ant):
>    1. Come up with mock classes (same interface,
>       no-op methods) to make the compiler happy and
>       use them during the build (I'd prefer this way)

Yep, this is my favourite too. I've written up mock versions of the
classes (empty method bodies returning null, false, etc.) that the tasks
compile against - I've already sent them to Stefan directly, and will
attach them to the bugzilla report.

> I'd be tempted to include the .class files from VAJ, however I'm not sure if
> that is really permitted... It's probably safer to go with option 1 so that
> the build process keeps working. I'll make those mockups and check if the
> compiled classes still work.

How about checking (and correcting) my mock classes instead :)  (I'm not
100% sure about return types, as I've written the classes from compiler
errors, not looking at the original classes - kind of a cleanroom
implementation... ). Additionally I've added a small disclaimer in each
class stating "It's not the ASF's fault"  basically - someone might want
to check this before putting the JAR to CVS...


{_{__}_}  Martin Landers                     
   oo         "elk"                              
  / /
 (..)     " Who is General Failure and why is he reading my harddisk ? "

View raw message