ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.ha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ivy jar packaging
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:19:05 GMT
On 12/20/07, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Reilly [mailto:peter.kitt.reilly@gmail.com]
> > Sent: jeudi 20 d├ęcembre 2007 10:34
> > To: Ant Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Ivy jar packaging
> >
> > On Dec 19, 2007 7:49 PM, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm confused.
> > > Is it really related to IvyDE or just to launching ant from eclipse?
> > > Also, If you don't put the the ivy ant task into the ant classpath,
> but only
> > > the core.  How does ant launched from eclipse find those tasks?
> > > I guess I miss something.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think it is a good idea to simplify our main distribution.
> > > However, once we will have a clear published interface, I think we
> could
> > > further split the distribution in the maven repository.
> > Please no,
> > There is quite enough jars in ant at the moment, having a number of
> extra
> > ivy jars to make things work is not in my opinion a good idea.
> > Peter
>
> I was not talking about splitting the binary/source distribution.  I think
> we have to keep them simple, and I'm thus
> rather in favour of having a single ivy.jar.  And if we want to put it
> into the ant project, we can use this single jar.
>
> The idea that I proposed of splitting it further was only for the
> distribution that we have in the maven repository.
> Some users might want to have only the core some will use an ftp resolver,
> other will also require the ant tasks, etc.
> I think it could make sense to split that into individual jars when
> published in the maven repository.  That would allow
> the user to only get the class that he need.


I'm not sure I'd be in favor of such a split, some users will end up using
ivy-full.jar, other only some modules, which may end up in difficult class
versions issues difficult to diagnose. So IMO I'd stick with only one jar
until people starts complaining about Ivy jar size. But as you said this is
not something that should be addressed now, so there's no reason to start a
long debate on the pros and cons of both approaches :-)

Xavier

But that's not for now.  Before we can do that, we will have to agree on
> what is the API that we publish and for which
> we are willing to keep good backward compatibility.
>
> Gilles
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message