geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT -- more opinions please!
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:30:29 GMT
I think the uber jar is convenient but it's already causing a rat's nest of 
issues.  I'd support dropping it.

Jason Dillon wrote:
> 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