I think that's fair enough, let's makes things as simple and easy as we can.
Building from source isn't that hard, especially given all the effort you and others have put into the build scripts. If new users want something easier to get started with you've listed several options that they have. Cheers, Tom On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > > In going through the exercise of cleaning up the release artifacts, I’ve > started to wonder if it actually makes sense to publish a “binary > distribution” of the JTSK separately from publishing the artifacts to Maven > Central. > > Basically, there is nothing in the JTSK that you can "just run”. Contrast > this with something like Tomcat, where you might download the binary > distribution and “just run” the web server. All you can do with the JTSK > as it stands is run the QA suites. To do that essentially requires > starting from the source distribution, since the Ant scripts do a build > before running the integration testing (and it really isn’t practical to > run the tests without the Ant scripts). The browser jar is there, but > frankly should probably be taken out (as we did in the 2.2 branch), because > to actually use it you need binaries, policy files, etc, which haven’t been > maintained in the JTSK for years. People should start from the > river-examples project, or Rio, or Harvester or StartNow if they want to > setup a Jini infrastructure and play with it. > > Any useful examples or applications will be getting the compiled jars from > Maven Central (via Maven, Gradle, or Ivy). I suppose one might argue that > it’s useful to ship the collection of compiled jars with their dependencies > (Groovy and high-scale-lib), but I suspect that most people are using > dependency management theses days. So I’m not sure if it’s worth the > effort to maintain the packaging scripts and the alternate license and > notice files that we would need for a binary release. > > Opinions? > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk
