I use clojure-contrib quite a bit, and I find a lot of value out of having the clj files in the JAR. First, I find it easier to debug a project, second there are example CLJ files in the source code on how to use the libraries, and those are of great interest, and it is much easier to get to these source files from my IDE if they are in the JAR. I understand the value a smaller footprint JAR file, so maybe there can be a property either set in the ant file or allowed as a parameter of the build file to allow someone to build the lightweight version of clojure-contrib if needed? Just the point of view of a user, not a contributor, of clojure-contrib.
Brian On Apr 7, 1:37 am, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/4/6 Tom Faulhaber <tomfaulha...@gmail.com> > > > Another question is whether we should duplicate the classes and > > the .clj files in the jar or should we just compile all of them. Is > > there some value to having the source there? > > There certainly some value for both scenario : having classes seems an > absolute requirement for some libraries to work, but having .clj files is > really interesting for those that want either (show-source) ... in their > REPL to work (or in IDEs for jumping to a read-only syntax-colored version > of the source file). > > But there is also certainly value in having a build with just the classes ? > (Though since the whole thing is open source, it's not a problem related to > rights, but maybe for some platforms such as Android, some people might want > the lightest possible jar ?) > > Regards, > > -- > Laurent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
