Shipping fat jar?

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2007 - 10:51:33 EST

  • Next message: Kevin Menard: "RE: 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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 10:52:56 EST