10 Dec 04:26
Re: Remove the binary distributions?
On Sep 27, 2011, at 5:25, Thomas Leonard wrote: > There's quite a lot of complexity (and slowness) in the E build for > producing platform-specific releases (e.g. E-win32-x86-0.9.3a.zip). Is > anybody using these? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have in the past used the Mac SWT releases while trying to get SWT to work. This little use case would probably be better served by a little note about "where to get SWT", but see below. > How would people feel about having a single E release (just puredist), > without any jars? This means that people writing SWT applications would > be responsible for distributing swt.jar with their application somehow > (e.g. using a Maven pom.xml, a 0install feed, or bundling a copy). In theory, SWT is to be the standard GUI library for EoJ. *.e-swt scripts (such as those included in the EoJ distribution) should just work out of the box. In practice, considering that SWT is native code where the rest of E isn't, and variously platform/version-dependent, I think it would be OK to say "get SWT <prominent link to specific instructions here> if you want to use these GUI programs". Possibly relevant: I am in favor of simplifying EoJ's build process. Higher-level point: I think we should reconsider to what degree we want to be writing E programs that are tied to Java at all. > We could make the rune "run" command depend on SWT in the 0install feed > so that the SWT example scripts continue to work without extra effort > (for people using 0install). That would avoid making every E program > depend on SWT (e.g. headless servers). People not using 0install or a(Continue reading)
RSS Feed