Bela Ban wrote:
> Why don't we do this for JBossCache and PojoCache (with
quite some deps)
> already ?
We could look at it. There are 2 disadvantages to doing it:
1) License compatibility (have to make sure deps have
compatible licenses)
2) A fatter jar
> Because the embeded JARs might conflict with the user's
copies
> (different versions) ?
It solves this by doing package translation. For example
org.apache.foo
becomes org.jgroups.thirdparty.foo.
> BTW: I'm really looking forward to Java 7's java
feature which let's you
> list directories with JARs, rather than the individual
JARs
Amen. Something that should have been there long ago.
>
> Jason T. Greene wrote:
>> Bela Ban wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>> The fact is, zero JARs is better than one,
no matter how small it is.
>>>
>>> +1000. I hope to ship only jgroups.jar some
day. And I hope that day
>>> will come before I retire... 
>>>
>>
>> Having one jar is awesome. You can do that today
though, even with deps!
>>
>> http://code.google.c
om/p/jarjar/
>>
>
--
Jason T. Greene
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-develop
ment
|