On Jul 19, 2007, at 1:00 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Hmm . . .
>
> I thought we were going to continue provide fat JARs for simplicity in
> deploying. Is this not the case?
Can't find the thread right away, and not sure if we had a formal
vote on this (this was definitely discussed at some point), but as of
now we don't. Instead there's a "third-party" directory where we
place what was in the fat JAR (to make it clear what's needed and to
give users more control over the third-party versions).
> Also, zip archives are more common for Windows machines than gzip'd
> tarballs are. Not a big deal with any modern archive utility, but
> something to consider for the final deployment.
Agreed - while there's no technical advantage to zip, tar.gz may
scare some Windows users :-)
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jul 19 2007 - 03:12:18 EDT