> So you're proposing an uber JAR and also an uber ZIP? What's the difference? > ZIP has the source? Anything else? I'd like it not to get confusing with too > many options.
Huh? Zip is just a standard compression and a convenient mechanism to put all files together. I don't even consider this an option. Unless you expect users to download README, LICENSE, files etc individually. Just take a peek/download at any distribution from apache and other OS if your curious (One for src and one for binaries). No, I'm not proposing an uber jar (I asked if we still need it; would like to only do this as a absolutely last resort even though it can be easily done with maven now). As you can see, I've been trying really hard not to create an uber jar but replicating the effect during assembly. I think an uber jar is a developers lazy way out making it difficult to extend and maintain. we could easily have the script set the classpath or meta-inf which will should simulate the effect (easier for end users). On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:59 AM, "Bleeker, Troy C." <[email protected]> wrote: >> Let's add a ctakes-distribution module that will assemble all of the >> individual jars, and startup scripts into a single zip and -src.zip (we'll >> have to do this as part of the Apache release anyway). Users can probably >> try that first. > > So you're proposing an uber JAR and also an uber ZIP? What's the difference? > ZIP has the source? Anything else? I'd like it not to get confusing with too > many options. I'd also like to make sure that the contents of the ZIP and JAR > are in the same structure as a checkout from SVN. We had divergent > deliverables for the same release in the past between the source repository > and the binaries. > > Thanks > Troy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Steven Bethard > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: latest build instructions > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:21 AM, "Chen, Pei" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I think I was pushing the boundaries with Maven in the exec scripts (even >> though it would be a cool- will have to revisit it). > > Actually I think what you were doing is fine. It's just that anything that > needs the jars from all the modules should be in the root pom.xml, not in a > sub-module pom.xml. > > Steve > > >> >> Let's add a ctakes-distribution module that will assemble all of the >> individual jars, and startup scripts into a single zip and -src.zip (we'll >> have to do this as part of the Apache release anyway). Users can probably >> try that first. >> >> --Pei >> ________________________________________ >> From: Steven Bethard [[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:09 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: latest build instructions >> >> On Oct 15, 2012, at 7:09 PM, "Chen, Pei" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> We can Make the runCVD mvn install optional as the exec scripts needs the >>> jars and its dependencies to be installed somewhere in order for it to work. >> >> That's because at the moment it's in the ctakes-clinical-pipeline/pom.xml. >> If you put it in the root pom.xml, then all the SNAPSHOT jars will be >> resolved in their normal places (assuming you run it at a late enough phase). >> >> Steve >
