On 9/9/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thinking of this in the same light as an obfuscator, I sort of thought > > of the rename/copy coming much later and only for the jar build. > > [rest snipped] > > I would be very tempted to veto any approach that had the jars > containing different code to that built in the classes directory and > usually(?) used for testing by developers. I believe it increases the > chance for problems being introduced in this process but not caught.
Does this mean you would object to both of Kathey's proposed options? Obfuscator-type modification of the binaries, or ant-based preprocessing of the source? It wasn't totally clear from this mail if that was the case. andrew
