[jsword-devel] Usability testing ...

[DM Smith]

Mark Goodwin wrote:

>I think tar.jar is used by both installers to unpack mods.tar.gz -
>perhaps removing it would be a bad idea.
>  
>
Yes, it would be very bad.

>mods.tar.gz is used to obtain the metadata on the available books; can
>you think of an alternative way of getting this (preferably without
>resorting to parsing html)?
>  
>
The Java Tar code is public domain, not licensed. We can do with it as 
we see fit.

The options I see are:
1) Distribute tar.jar via a different mechanism.
    a) put the code into another jar that does not have the problem
    b) put the code into common as com.ice, exactly as is.
    c) put the code into common as org.crosswire.tar, keeping only what 
we need.
        While I generally am against maintaining 3rd party code, we use 
very little of the package
        and it is really straightforward.
2) Force everyone to upgrade to Java 1.4.2 or greater.
3) Convince the Sword community to maintain both a mods.d.zip and a 
mods.d.tar.gz.

Personally, I like the last one the best. It removes one more dependency 
in our code.

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:25:42 -0400, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Joe,
>>Would you comment out these jars in the bibledesktop.jnlp? (I think that
>>this is easier than sending a patch for a single file.) My thought is
>>that the jnlp is for the average user, zips for the tinkerer and cvs for
>>developers. So jnlp should not bring down extras, the zips should
>>contain all the jars and cvs, well, has everything.
>>
>><!-- These are optional. Probably of use only to developers at this point.
>>    <jar href="lucene-1.3-final.jar"/>
>>    <jar href="tar.jar"/>
>>-->
>>
>>Also, I am curious, what leads you to believe that it is a problem w/
>>1.4.1? I did check the jar and it is signed.
>>
>>DM
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>  
>