[Mono-list] Javascript and Mono

Steve Newman steve@snewman.net
Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:26:19 -0800

At 11:05 AM -0500 1/5/03, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>> * 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

Yes, I have no objection to relicensing, multiple licenses, or whatever.  Basically I have no agenda here, I'm just happy to see the code get used.

A related note: I believe Gopal V (gopalv82@dotgnu.org) has just checked the JANET code into Portable.Net.  Since some of the next steps are pretty obvious (finish ECMAScript 3, add JScript.net support, etc.), it would be a shame to see the code forked.  I've never participated actively in an open-source project before, let alone dealt with code that was shared by two projects, so I don't know how to address this.  As the original author, I could try to act as a coordinator or moderator for the core JavaScript code.  (It might not make sense to share more than the core code in any case, as each project might have a different agenda for how the JavaScript compiler is to be integrated into the rest of the system.)

Restated: I do not feel competent to propose a specific mechanism for sharing the JavaScript compiler code between Mono and Portable.Net, but if someone else can propose a mechanism, I am happy to help implement it.

> > * is the current split in assemblies ok (PrettyPrinter.dll,
>> JPrimitive.dll, JObjects.dll, etc)? or should we have a single JANET
>> assembly?
>Single assembly sounds nice to me;  It seems like the current split was
>done to implement partial compilation.

Yes, and also because at the time I didn't fully understand how the C# compiler worked.  The whole thing is small enough that a single assembly probably makes much more sense.

> > * do you have Steve's 'TODO' list?
>I do not.

I'm in the process of editing it down to a readable form.  I'll try to get it posted by tommorrow.

-- Steve