ofbiz/ant/<script> redux

[Adam Heath-2]

Hmm.  I noticed there's a new ant version, 1.7.1, released Jun 27,
2008.  In the release notes for that, I see this:

==
<script> can now work with bsf.jar and js.jar in its <classpath>.
==

When I was trying to do all that ant script stuff a while back, it was
failing, because classes needed to be added to the global ant path; in
eclipse, this is frowned upon, as each project needs to be kept separate.

There are also a few other fixes(<java> with fork fails in some
cases), that I think I should do the upgrade.

However, the last time ant work was done, it caused issues with people
using complex IDEs, I thought it best to give a heads up first before
proceeding.

[BJ Freeman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

yes.
please note in the user mailing list as well the revision and that if
they have problems to revert back.
of course this cause problems if they want to go forward, I think.
any suggestions?

Adam Heath sent the following on 3/13/2009 11:30 AM:

> Hmm.  I noticed there's a new ant version, 1.7.1, released Jun 27,
> 2008.  In the release notes for that, I see this:
>
> ==
> <script> can now work with bsf.jar and js.jar in its <classpath>.
> ==
>
> When I was trying to do all that ant script stuff a while back, it was
> failing, because classes needed to be added to the global ant path; in
> eclipse, this is frowned upon, as each project needs to be kept separate.
>
> There are also a few other fixes(<java> with fork fails in some
> cases), that I think I should do the upgrade.
>
> However, the last time ant work was done, it caused issues with people
> using complex IDEs, I thought it best to give a heads up first before
> proceeding.
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJurNYrP3NbaWWqE4RAq9WAJ9ecf3fLTTVfYL5cS8133+Ybm7x9wCgoeKu
DbvG1uRJHGrHDtC+EJ7WCtM=
=Lrxt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam Heath-2]

BJ Freeman wrote:
> yes.
> please note in the user mailing list as well the revision and that if
> they have problems to revert back.
> of course this cause problems if they want to go forward, I think.
> any suggestions?

Well, we have to upgrade to newer versions of libraries at some point.
 This will always happen.  And, especially in this case, the new
version seems to fix a problem I had originally, so this upgrade is
more warranted than others.