cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nader Aeinehchi" <na...@makeit.no>
Subject Re: Type in Documentation..
Date Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:06:39 GMT
In the Java world, Jar format is very common although it may not always be
the optimal choice.  I personally love
Zip, Tar, but well why not Jar?

-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Lavoie <philippe.lavoie@cactus.ca>
To: 'cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org' <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 12:26 AM
Subject: RE: Type in Documentation..


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Ball [mailto:balld@webslingerZ.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 4:44 PM
>> To: 'cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: Type in Documentation..
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Kevin Sonney wrote:
>>
>> But that's only applicable to compressed java package JARs,
>> not compressed
>> program distribution file JARs (with source and docs and jpegs and all
>> sorts of other garbage that you don't necessarily want
>> cluttering up your
>> system CLASSPATH), right? I'm saying the cocoon should be
>
>I think one of the books that gave advices on applet said
>to put everything inside the jar (gifs, files, etc).
>Since the applet could use everything inside it's own jar
>anyway.
>
>So yes, you are not restricted to .class inside your jar to make
>use of it.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I love .tar.gz. It's just that .jar can do the job
>too. I personnaly don't have any feelings when way or the other.
>I just think you should do what's easier.
>
>Phil
>


Mime
View raw message