[jsword-devel] Releases

[DM Smith]

Joe Walker wrote:
>
>DM Smith wrote:
>>JNLP delivers just binary. I think it is sufficient. (I'm a bit biased)
>>CVS delivers source, but a whole lot more. I think if we were to create 
>>src zips along with the jars and put them in the nightly jnlp directory 
>>that would be good.
>>
>>As a matter of delivery structure for the batch envrionment it is:
>>     bin/
>>     lib/
>>     resource/
>>
>>for jnlp it is
>>     jnlp/
>>
>>If we build:
>>     bin/ with the shell scripts
>>     lib/ with signed jars (including resource.jar) and jnlp file
>>
>>this would merge the two into one directory structure in the build, on the 
>>website and for those that want to download and run locally, from local 
>>disk.
>
>How about we merge bin/ and lib/ too, is there a good reason to keep them 
>separate?

None that I see.

>
>The reason resources is kept separate, and unpacked is so that advanced 
>users can edit the properties files, which gives you a primitive plug-in 
>architecture.
>

Maybe we can have ResourceUtil do a lookup first in the ~/.jsword for the 
named file and then proceed as before. It would be easiest if we can modify 
the classpath programmatically to have it at the beginning of the path. 
Otherwise we would need to roll our own. With this the resource.jar does not 
need to be unpacked.

>Maybe we could have the batch files use resource.jar or resource/ whichever 
>is present.
>
>
>>I think that the website should also be restructured wrt the download and 
>>installation.
>
>Added to bugs.txt
>
>Joe.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>jsword-devel mailing list
>jsword-devel@crosswire.org
>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/