Hi Kevin,
I have no issues with having both fat and skinny jars, and multiple
ways to configure both fat and skinny jars.
I do suggest that if the identical information is in two places (the
pom and the easier to find/read place) there is the opportunity for
them to get out of sync.
I don't know if anyone has ever done so, but perhaps a simple xsl
script could scan the pom and extract just the info you're looking
for. Myself, I found that the pom was easy enough to scan by eye to
find the dependencies...[assuming it's a maven 1 pom that includes
all recursive dependencies, unlike maven 2]
Craig
On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>>> How about a very low tech approach. Create a file as part of the
>>> deployment (or a web page for that matter), which lists every
>>> dependency, the appropriate version (or range of versions), and the
>>> URL of the place to get the jar. We do that in our own
>> project so that
>>> we can easily track what we are using and where we got it from.
>>
>> Doesn't the cayenne maven pom do this?
>
> It does . . . providing you're familiar with maven and know what
> you're
> looking for. Before I started using maven, I had no clue that this
> was
> the case.
>
> So, +1 for making it easier to find/read.
>
> Even still, as a new user, I really don't want to be bothered with
> chasing dependencies. For most smaller apps, I still use the fat JAR
> just because it's very simple. Granted, the other approach isn't
> difficult, per se . . .
>
> --
> Kevin
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russel..un.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 21:20:08 EST