Miguel de Icaza
05 Jan 2003 11:05:48 -0500
> * The current JANET license is GPL, is that ok? (since I think the class
> libraries are distributed under the MIT license)
I have CCed Steve on this email.
Steve, would it be possible for you to relicense Janet under the X11
license? The idea we have is to turn Janet into a dynamic compiler that
could be used to implement the VSA and JScript interfaces exposed by
these requests in this case, the X11 license would be best in this case
(in fact, probably the LGPL would work here, as we do not get to expose
any of the internal interfaces of the compiler to the world).
> * is it's name (in CVS) janet, Janet, JANET, or something else?
I think `janet' should be good.
Your account will let you import the sources into the CVS. Be careful,
because the CVS import is very unnatural (I think you have to CD into
the directory, and then import the sources, and then check-them out
> * is the current split in assemblies ok (PrettyPrinter.dll,
> JPrimitive.dll, JObjects.dll, etc)? or should we have a single JANET
Single assembly sounds nice to me; It seems like the current split was
done to implement partial compilation.
> * do you have Steve's 'TODO' list?
I do not.
> * I would like to have a directory structure similar to the way it will
> eventually be put under mcs/class, so I'm thinking of the following
> directory structure, is this ok? (you need to strip the module name off
> everything for things to be put under /mcs/class):
> janet/ (module)
> janet/janet/ (Assembly topdir)
> janet/janet/janet/ (janet itself)
> janet/janet/Test/ (tests)
> janet/Microsoft.JScript/ (Assembly topdir)
> janet/Microsoft.JScrtip/Microsoft.JScript/ (bridge/compatility classes)
> janet/Microsoft.JScrtip/Tests (tests)
Good thinking. This layout makes sense.