Hi,
[... VAJ Mock classes ...]
> We can use them to compile the VAJ classes that we distribute with
> Ant, but I'm not sure whether we could distribute the mock classes
> themselves.
Hm, AFAIC not distributing the mock classes themselves, only task binaries
and sources is fine. I just didn't like the idea of people having to
import the complete Ant source into VAJ and back out, just to create the
binaries for the VAJ tasks... (The same thing Francois mentions - the old
"installation mode" is awful).
> They'll have "ibm" in their names which may be enough to
> make lawyers jump up and down.
Lawyers are a strange kind of people.
I share your concern that the mock classes might cause problems... Which
is why I didn't use the original classes or documentation in creating the
mock classes and added the disclaimer to each one. But I can't help about
the names having "com.ibm..." in them, so let's stick with your proposal
and not include the mock classes in the Ant distributions or publicly
available CVS tree. People who have an interest in changing the taks (that
is need to recompile the binaries) should have VAJ around anyway...
If you feel the Bugzilla attachment may be seen as "distribution", just
remove it.
> As long as we distribute binaries, things should be fine, no?
Yep, I think so. The binaries (and sources) for the tasks only contain
references to the IBM classes, and I hope lawyers don't go crazy for an
"import com.ibm...." ;)
cu
Martin
--
{_{__}_} Martin Landers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
oo "elk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /
(..) " Who is General Failure and why is he reading my harddisk ? "
--
