cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Menard" <kmen...@servprise.com>
Subject RE: Shipping fat jar?
Date Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:04:01 GMT
I always liked having a fat JAR just because I didn't have to guess what
Cayenne's dependencies were.  Even if I can dump everything into
WEB-INF, it's nice to know to whom each dependency belongs.

Having said that, I won't cry over spilt milk if it's gone.  Especially
since I've migrated to maven and have a whole new lot of things to cry
about :-(

-- 
Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:52 AM
> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Shipping fat jar?
> 
> I am considering whether we should stop shipping the "fat"  
> cayenne.jar in 3.0 (would've been called 
> cayenne-server-deps.jar according to the new naming 
> convention). The original motivation for it goes back to the 
> days when full CLASSPATH had to be specified when running 
> "javac" and "java" from command line. So it saved quite a bit 
> of typing. With Ant, Eclipse and war format this seems obsolete.  
> Instead I thought we might include a minimal set of runtime 
> dependencies in the "lib/third-party" folder.
> 
> Anybody thinks it is a bad idea to get rid of the fat jar?
> 
> Andrus
> 

Mime
View raw message