[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17766560#comment-17766560
]
Tim Allison commented on TIKA-4134:
-----------------------------------
I think that'd be great.
As I think about this more...unless there are objections, we can add *.tar.gz
along with our current fat jars later. We don't need to swap the fat jars for
*.tar.gz at a major version change. We could stop building fat jars at say 4.x,
but we could have parallel release artifacts in 3.x.
WDYT?
> Maybe move away from an uber jar for tika-app and tika-server-standard in 3.x?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TIKA-4134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4134
> Project: Tika
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Tim Allison
> Priority: Major
>
> On https://github.com/apache/tika/pull/1345#issuecomment-1723321327,
> [~desruisseaux] pointed out that uber jars might not be the best idea with
> jpms in the future.
> I'm opening this issue to discuss if we want to change the packaging
> structure in 3.x.
> If we wanted to "go small" we can keep things as they are in 3.x and warn
> users that we might move away from an uber jar in 4.x.
> If we wanted to "go big", we could use the maven dependency plugin to create
> a "lib/" directory with all of the dependencies and then have a small
> tika-app.jar that includes those dependencies in its classpath.
> Are there other, better ways that we should think about packaging tika-app
> and tika-server in 3.x and beyond?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
