> -----Original Message----- > From: Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) > > > > Can we dig into this a little further. In particular - I'll like to > > known what the underlying (real) objective is: > > > > 1. a "sealed deliverable" (i.e. something that the client > > cannot tinker with) ? > > 2. simple installation without network access ? > > 3. something else ? > > Here it comes again. > > - I don't want X > - Why? Whats the underlying (real) objective to not want X?
I don't think Stephen's trying to be difficult at all. He has particular views about what makes a good container and is trying hard to convince everyone else. :) Back to the question: Why would I like a single jar? Well, sometimes it's not _just_ the ability to have a single jar, sometimes it's having the option to use something other than repository format, such as: * one large single jar * one single jar directory (/lib) * using an already existing classloader (perhaps from the CLASSPATH) Why? * Simplicity * Webapps (using WEB-INF/lib) * Simplicity * Developers and users are "used" to these sort of layouts * Sealed jars (sometimes needed) * Simplicity I certainly see it could be done and the balls as much in my court to write a new implementation as any one else. On a slightly different subject, I'm going to try to pull together the various threads on roadmaps, meta, and containers and try to get us back on track to come to a conclusion. :) J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS DDP-CIM (724) 696-7653 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
