Assign and List directive fixes and tests #20
Conversation
Character -> Character.valueOf
|
@maxandersen the freemarker plugin has a bunch of LGPL'ed source files. Isn't it supposed to be EPL'd by now? |
|
JavaDoc, @SInCE and license headers updated. |
|
Peter, I believe the new code should be EPL'ed. Waiting for @maxandersen input about also changing all existing headers to EPL. But maybe @richardfontana can confirm too. |
|
No problem, let's wait :) |
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
| <classpath> | |||
| <classpathentry exported="true" kind="lib" path="freemarker-2.3.18.jar"/> | |||
| <classpathentry exported="true" kind="lib" path="freemarker-2.3.18.jar" sourcepath="/home/ppalaga/bin/freemarker/freemarker-2.3.18-sources.jar"/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Local filesystem path is not portable for other developers, there should be dependency declared in pom.xml and downloaded during maven build
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right, {{sourcepath="/home/ppalaga/bin/freemarker/freemarker-2.3.18-sources.jar"}} needs to be removed.
With maven you mean something like this? https://github.com/ppalaga/jbosstools-base/blob/master/stacks/plugins/org.jboss.tools.stacks.core/pom.xml#L25
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually sourcepath in JDT classpathentries always use hard coded paths, even if maven downloads it automatically.
For regular Java projects, this is transparent because classpath entry attributes are stored locally within the maven classpath library. For other kind of projects were the entry shows up directly in the .classpath file, you'll always see hardcoded paths.
So removing sourcepath from .classpath is better, from a SCM perspective, but then it means developers need some extra discipline to not push .classpath when sourcepaths are modified and deal with merges when necessary.
|
Is there a JIRA issue for this PR? |
|
No, there is no JIRA issue for this PR. |
|
Please create one then |
|
no, freemarker and hibernate tools are still under LGPL. |
|
That makes things easier then :-) |
|
@fbricon, should I create I hope (c) is what you mean? :) |
|
I'm fine with c) |
|
|
Looks good to me. Java 7 isn't necessary atm, so unless something is broken, it could be applied. |
|
Haven't tested it yet, just looked through the code. I'll test it and release to the master. |
No description provided.