It's very nice to hear from you again!
You're welcome. I was wondering though: how complete do you consider
We have to talk more about the JNI binaries because there is a
division here on the subject of jar-ing them all together - we'll
effectively be shipping a single jar with binaries of 5 architectures
thus causing a huge increase in file size.
Apart from the file size I don't see that as a bad thing. It kind of keeps up
with Java's promise of compile once.
Couldn't we generate different jars, a generic one and one for each platform
with profiles or something the like? So that e.g. the one we publish on
Sonatype/in our repo contains all platforms, but e.g. a build run for
videobridge-windows only includes win-x86.
Additionally, we don't have many developers at this time who have
tried the newly-introduced Maven support.
Well, that'll change soon - starting with me
Thanks a lot for your efforts!
These two above are reasons to lead me to believe that libjitsi's pom
If 'complete' then we should remove IDE specific files from
the repository. The IDE (or a plugin therein) can generate them on the fly.
Even if libjitsi's pom is incomplete, I don't see why removing the
IDE-specific files should be postponed. As far as I'm concerned, we
just need someone to test the current pom in IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse
and NetBeans and, if it works in these, I suppose we can delete the
Well, Eclipse does work (apart from the fact that 1.6 compiler requirement).
I had tons of compiler errors when importing the project like this in
Eclipse. This was because Maven defaults to Java 1.5. Adding
to the maven-compiler-plugin solved that. IMO we should add that to the
universe-pom. Not quite sure about the version though. I'd prefer 1.8,
but that would probably conflict with some Linux distributions. 1.6
seems too old now, it's EOL over two years now .
I tried to avoid version upgrades when developing the initial Maven
support. I see now that libjitsi's build.xml has javac source and
target at 1.6 so I could add that to libjitsi's pom as well if you
Yes, please do that.
I'm personally OK with 1.8 as well but I'm not sure Debian will
1.7 should probably be okay. I don't know about 1.8. It's been backported to
older releases and Jitsi itself is not even included in any release (apart
from the broken one in Ubuntu 14.04). While they may not specifically like it,
I don't see a technical reason not to do it. Maybe someone from the Linux
community can give a hint on that.
And it would give us lambdas.
2015-07-27 12:29 GMT-05:00 Ingo Bauersachs <email@example.com>: