Duh, carelessness on my part.... Without LOOKING, I assumed that JDK's jar would create a manifest with an entry for each file that was 'jarred'. So, I thought I'd be missing that info. My fault for not looking first, because I now see that the jar's manifest has no such list of classes.....
Which then begs the question - what is the performance delta if some java code accesses classes via a jar, and the jar does NOT have a manifest that lists all the available classes, versus accessing classes from a jar that DOES have an entry for each class in the manifest???? Or is there any difference? Also, anyone have any ideas on the problem I reported with ONE jar file causing a checksum error??? Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > >>>>> "KW" == Ken Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > KW> Including one is not an option, since the jars I want to merge > KW> come from a nighly build, the contents can change, so I want the > KW> manifest to be automatic. > > But the one you get when you simply jar up your temp directory is > always the sam, isn't it? Ant's default Manifest simply consists of > > Manifest-Version: 1.0 > Created-By: Ant ANTVERSION > > so it isn't any better than supplying one of your own, is it? > > Stefan
