incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:22:46 GMT
Roy-

I think people use the ".zip" extensions because that is what most  
desktop managers will map to the decompression application. Also,  
recent version of Windows allow exploring of .zip file from within  
explorer.exe as if they were directory structures.

To my knowledge, no OS is smart enough to be able to distinguish  
between a .jar that is just an archive of files vs. an  
executable .jar file (where double-clicking indicates that the jar's  
application should be launched).

Of course, the existing .zip assembly file can always be unpacked  
using the "jar xvf ...zip" command, so no additional software should  
ever be required to unpack them.


On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> BTW, why distribute a zip package?  Wouldn't it be more sensible to
>>> distribute as a jar?  Just curious.
>>
>> The zip contains documentation, examples, and the dependency jars  
>> required to run the examples.
>
> Yes, I know that -- the point was that the jar format, as in
>
>    jar cvf mypackage.jar mypackage
>
> is a general archive format that uses ZIP compression and can be
> unpacked by anyone who has installed java.  Is there a reason to
> use a separate packaging format that is specific to winzip?
>
> I use gzipped tar for C releases and jar for java releases, but
> I have also seen a lot of other java projects that distribute both
> a .zip package and a tar.gz package.  I was wondering if you knew why.
>
> ....Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message