Yeah.. those 2 are kinda at odds. The simplest possible solution is to give the an uber jar with all the features that way they don't have to think about addition jars need to enable extra features. While making a slim jar is usually all about cutting out optional features.
Regards, Hiram On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is it a size of the jar problem? Or is it I just need 1 jar >> dependency type problem? Or is I can't tell which one I should pick >> problem? > > The questions I have received were mainly about simplicity regarding > what is required on the client side. Additional comments indicate that > folks would like the smallest jar possible. > > Bruce > -- > perl -e 'print > unpack("u30","D0G)u8...@4vyy9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com/
