ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Holloway, Kevin (DEH)" <khollo...@deh.sa.gov.au>
Subject RE: Question re: jaxp.jar and parser.jar
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:51:23 GMT
I have used jar files with a manifest file containing:
 - A "Main-Class" attribete, which defines the class which contains the
static main menthod.
 - A "Class-Path" attribute, which specifies additional jar files which the
main class requires.

Works fine for me.

Kevin Holloway

-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:JFernandez@viquity.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 6:26 AM
To: 'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Question re: jaxp.jar and parser.jar


> From: James Sieben (EUS) [mailto:EUSJASI@am1.ericsson.se]
> 
> <rant>
> 
> I am sorely disappointed with the manner in which "optional packages",
> "standard extensions", or just someone else's class library 
> is added to my
> Java installation.
> [.....]
> The standard extension mechanism seems like it could ease 
> some headaches,
> but like others have noted, having to deal with the JDK 
> installation versus
> the JRE, which both have different directory trees, is silly. 
> Why doesn't
> the standard JDK installation just stick the JRE binaries in 
> the same place?
> 
> Argh. This is one thing that really sucks about Java: it's too
> difficult/complicated to load new classes.
> 
> </rant>
> 

Has anyone successfuly played with specifying a classpath inside a jar?
I thought that was one of the innovation in JDK 1.2. 
The idea being that we could call ANT by just saying:

  java -jar ant.jar [params...]

and java will look at the manifest in ant.jar to figure out the main and
what to
add to the classpath. Does this work in practice? or is it some badly
thought
useless functionality?

I may try to experiment with it. If no one has tried.

Jose Alberto

Mime
View raw message