Re: The fate of ditaa.jar (9.4.5.)

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
>> I agree. As pointed out already, just bundling the jar file is not
>> sufficient as you need a java runtime as well.
>
> Java is available in my distribution, ditaa is not. Removing ditaa from
> org means that I have to do manual installation and configuration, while
> with ditaa bundled, org-mode can simply note that I need java installed.
>

I get that. However, this is of course not the case for many users (Mac,
Windows). Having to install additional software to realise org
functionality is normal for much of org-mode. In fact, I had to install
ditta when I first used it because it wasn't bundled. That was not an
issue and no surprise given I also had to install textlive, plantuml,
graphviz, taskjuggler, ledger, sqlite and many other things.

I understand the convenience for users argument. However, I think we
also need to consider the maintenance overheads and consistency aspects
as well (including dealing with bug reports when it doesn't work). 

>> If we bundle it, we also need to ensure it is updated if/when new jar
>> versions are released.
>
> We can do that, but we don’t have to. As long as the bundled jar works,
> it is much better than no jar. And users can use newer version as they
> like by changing the jar-path.
>
> Note that this isn’t about security, since even if an old version of
> ditaa should turn out to be vulnerable, this would still be less
> dangerous than a shell-block. Therefore old versions of ditaa are
> completely fine.
>

My thoughts were more about bugs and confusing deprecation warnings
which can arise when using an older jar file with a more recent jre.

Ultimately, it will fall to whoever steps up to maintain ditta support
to decide. 

-- 
Tim Cross