On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "jarjar'ing" the dependency? What does that mean? I hope I'm not the only > one who isn't hip to the lingo! I guess if I knew the context better I could > work it out.
jarjar is a tool that repackages a dependency in a jar by renaming its packages so that it won't conflict with another version in the classpath. http://code.google.com/p/jarjar/ > Secondly, I was wondering about the advantages of having fewer dependencies, > especially in this maven era. If something's really great, it's fine to > depend on it, surely? Actually, this Maven era is more like shining the light on an ugly, moldy dark corner of the basement. It also highlights the need, IMO, for a module system in Java, because if you think about it, only XWork really needs to have access to ASM, so jarjar can make that happen. A user shouldn't have to worry about using a different version of ASM in their application. I believe a library should stay out of your way and impose as little of itself as possible. Libraries should be enablers, not constrictors. Don > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
