Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation

[Nic Ferrier]

>I couldn't figure that out either.  The "hard to read" bits were the
>two-space indents ... better than one or three (yeech!) but not as
>good as four or eight (which don't hide structure as thoroughly).
>Even so, lines exceed 80 chars ... Some of that javadoc needs work
>too.  Plus, some of those files have an issue with the "if" and its
>consequence being at the same indent level.

Ok. So the files need reformatting. I'll do that soon.



>Is that stuff going to get relicensed as "GPL plus library
>exception"?  It seems to be LGPL now, precluding static linking and
>going against the policy I thought we'd agreed on.

I'm happy to do it as long as Andrew is. We jointly hold the (c) on
these.

It's not a big issue right now as there is no way this stuff is going
to interoperate with GCJ right now.

We have to sort out the issue of awt depenancy.

I'm considering adding AWT skeleton classes (from the Classpath
implementation) as a dependancy fix... but there might be a more
elegant solution.


Nic