[Gdal-dev] Recent changes related to the Java bindings

[Simone.Giannecchini]

Hi list,
since I am mainly concerned in the java bindings (as well as aaime is) I
would like to give a couple of suggestions which may help or not.
1>When installing java  people are supposed to define a JAVA_HOME env
variable hence by default I would suggest to the Java guys to not set the
JAVA_HOME variable in java.opt and run the following command twhen
generating the bindings:

nmake /F  makefile.vc /E java

The /E will pick up the correct JAVA_HOME env var from wherever it is.

2>99% Of people that intall ant, usually put it in the path. Hence it is
unnecessary most part of the time to define an ANT_HOME variable as in
java.opt. I would suggest to make the definition of the ANT_HOME variable
optional in the java.opt file just run ant by default.

3>I would suggest to provide a maven descriptor along with the ant one (it
would pretty easy to add it) and to upload the releveant jar on some public
maven repository so that people can get it directly from there.

Again, these are just some advice from a Java programmer, so don't be too
hard on me :-).

Ciao,
Simone.



aaime wrote:
> 
> Tamas Szekeres ha scritto:
>> 2007/5/17, Andrea Aime <aaime at openplans.org>:
> ...
>> We have no VC6 buildslaves configured currently so I cannot confirm
>> whether it builds on this compiler or not. The buildbot currently
>> contains VC71 and VC80 builders. The latter is configured to produce
>> 64 bit binaries.
>> IIRC Mateusz is planning to make the results available to download,
>> but this option haven't
>> been realized yet.
> 
> Well, nice it's in the plans anyways.
> 
>> 
>> I have no doubts about it. However for the windows builds it's more
>> convenient to provide this setting in a common configuration file
>> (that is the nmake.opt) than altering many other files in different
>> places. It is pretty unmanageable from the buildbot's perspective.
>> 
>> Do we have a 'make test' functionality for the java builds?
> 
> Heh, unfortunately not.
> Plus, the layout of the java binding sources is "peculiar" to say
> the least (at least by java standards). Ideally we should have
> a set of JUnit tests for the java bindings.
> 
> Cheers
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> Gdal-dev mailing list
> Gdal-dev at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Recent-changes-related-to-the-Java-bindings-tf3749437.html#a10673256
Sent from the GDAL - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.