On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:02 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:16 AM
>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: Folder and ZIP format contributions containing nested
>>> application JARs
>>>
>>> [[snip]]
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you're objecting to supporting zip contributions with
>>>> nested jars or that currently the change to do that doesn't
>>>> discriminated between zip and jar contributions so its possible to
>>>> nest jars in jars?
>>>
>>> I'm against adding nested jars to jar contributions. Zip contributions can
>>> have its own classloading scheme.
>>>
>>
>> Cool, me too. Like i said earlier this is work in progress and thats
>> just a whole that needs to be plugged, i'll go prevent that from being
>> possible.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Sorry, I overlooked this thread as I was out at the time. In summary
> then are you saying your preference is the following....
>
> OK
> -----
>
> mycontrib.ear
> myutil.jar
>
> mycontrib/
> myutil.jar
>
> Not OK
> -----------
>
> mycontrib.jar
> myutil.jar
>
> Simon
>
Assuming you mean zip ("mycontrib.zip" not "mycontrib.ear") then yes,
and thats what the code 1.x and 2.x support now.
...ant
