You should use hook_library for libraries in D7

It's a deal. When I get a chance, I'll do this but I'm also open to patches.

Can you elaborate on "the IE stuff isn't working yet"?

I stopped being excited about IE when the ability to change frameborder colours wore off, but if this doesn't work for IE then it's still "Needs Work" IMO.

I think that code shouldn't use file_scan_directory with recurse and then assume the found file is at the top of the path?

This code adds the IE conditional tags for excanvas in D7. But I don't know how libraries module handles IE conditional tags, or if the excanvas reference should go in a separate library folder etc.

    //for IE add this
    $expath = $path . '/other_libs/excanvas_r3/excanvas.compiled.js';
    if (file_exists($expath)) {
      $exhtml = array(
        '#type' => 'markup',
        '#markup' => '<!--[if IE]><script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="/' . $expath . '"></script><![endif]-->',
      );      
      drupal_add_html_head($exhtml, 'beautytips');
    }

I used the above patch, got the excanvas library loading, and committed this to the 7.x-2.x-dev branch. Please reopen if this does not work for you.

where do I place the excanvas folder now?

I'm developing on Windows 7. Oh, joy! The file_exists() function doesn't work on Windows well. Doesn't the Libraries module have a mechanism to check this without using file_exists()? Also, for convention sake should the excanvas library be placed in sites/all/libraries for convention sake?

The libraries api module uses file_exists in a bunch of places and it's used all over the place elsewhere in Drupal. If we can identify what's causing the file_exists to fail in Windows, then we can probably make it work.

Right now, it's checking the file starting from the drupal root, but it could check from the root of the disk using DRUPAL_ROOT constant. I don't have a good way of checking if this works in Windows or not.

Yeah, the excanvas should go into sites/all/libraries. Both of these items should probably be separate issues.

Re-open reason for this issue sounds like a new bug report, no?

Else there'd be no need for new issues, everyone would just re-open an the original feature request when they find any bug.

"needs work" with this issue title does not convey what the current is, at least.