Hello.
I have not moved to maven, but stopped to use the fat cayenne.jar as
I had some conflicting jar-files. I guess the fat jar is good for
quick-start for simple projects. Sooner or later most people will
probably want to have control over this in the project.
I do not care if we keep it or drop it.
- Tore.
On Jan 2, 2007, at 16:51, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> 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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 16:17:46 EST