I've been thinking about the JAR files in the source distribution. To me it makes no sense to include them in the source distro. (I don't believe we have done that up to this point either so this would not be a change for MyFaces.)
If someone wants to build from the source distro they can follow the standard build procedure. The depencies are only a few keystrokes away using ant (or eventually Maven.) For the binary distro I guess I am +1 for including them there. You can quickly copy the ones you need to your server/lib or whatever or you can ignore them. No harm done either way. For the examples distro (nightly build only) I think we definitely include them. IMO those should be runable in a default Tomcat install just by dropping in the WAR. sean On 6/27/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for removing the jars from SVN, I think we should consider this > matter closed. Its a good idea for several reasons which Craig, > Martin and others have articulated quite clearly. Not only will this > save bandwith (and therefore money) for the ASF, but it brings us into > compliance with the standard by which other ASF projects do things. > > When possible, the various ASF projects should try to do things in a > similar fashion. Regardless of how one might decide to do things in > their corporate environment, ASF has its own way of doing things. > MyFaces should comply with the formal and informal practices of the > other projects whenever there is not a compelling reason to deviate > from those norms. > > There is still the matter of including jars in the binary distro, etc. > where I can see advantages and disadvantages to the two approaches. > But as far as jars in SVN are concerned, it seems quite clear that > this practice should end. > > sean > > On 6/27/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And we're working on just such a list of the dependencies. That is > > one benefit of moving the jars out of SVN. I took the approach that > > the Struts build uses. The build script clearly lists the depencies > > and the version numbers required. > > > > Of course we could have that without removing the jars from SVN too. > > But its 100% essential if we don't supply the jars and so now we have > > it. Both sides should be happy on this point :-) > > > > sean > > > > On 6/27/05, ir. ing. Jan Dockx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Jun 2005, at 20:43, Craig McClanahan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > For the record, I am absolutely and totally -1 on including JAR files > > > > in the source code repository of any Apache project that I work on. > > > > Including them in a binary distribution, of course, is a totally > > > > different animal. > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even then. (see previous post). In my opinion (for as much as that of a > > > user counts), only end-user products should contain all dependencies. > > > Libraries should never, but instead list the dependencies with all > > > needed information, including what each dependency is needed for. > > > > > > > > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > > > > > > Jan Dockx > > > > > > PeopleWare NV - Head Office > > > Cdt.Weynsstraat 85 > > > B-2660 Hoboken > > > Tel: +32 3 448.33.38 > > > Fax: +32 3 448.32.66 > > > > > > PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel > > > Kleinhoefstraat 5 > > > B-2440 Geel > > > Tel: +32 14 57.00.90 > > > Fax: +32 14 58.13.25 > > > > > > http://www.peopleware.be/ > > > http://www.mobileware.be/ > > > > > > > > > > > >
