geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Dillon" <jason.dil...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT -- more opinions please!
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:16:23 GMT
IMO uberjar is more trouble than it is worth. 

--jason


-----Original Message-----
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@toolazydogs.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:26:09 
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT -- more opinions please!

David Blevins wrote, On 1/30/2006 11:39 AM:
> 
> On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> 
>> If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies, would  
>> the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
> 
> 
> For maven 2 all we need is an uber pom.  For people on maven 1 and  ant 
> and plain IDEs, an uber jar is nice.

Following that line of reasoning, should we not have a super-uber jar 
that contains the specs, Geronimo, and its depdendencies?  I think that 
it's better to do away w/ the uber jar all together.


Regards,
Alan


Mime
View raw message