I think Sanne has a good point here. The people who are already using Maven or Ivy are not in need of a ueber-jar. They (hopefully) already realized that modularized jars are the better approach.
I am against continuing the support for a hibernate core ueberjar. I am not sure whether we really need some sort of substitute. @Steve, can you explain in more detail how your Ivy approach would look like? Regarding the maven archetype plugin. I recommend to stay away from it. I tried to use it in Validator and Search and it is just broken. See also http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ARCHETYPE-302 Thinking about generating multiple different artifacts gives me the shivers. --Hardy On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:20:11 +0200, Sanne Grinovero <sanne.grinov...@gmail.com> wrote: > People loving uber-jars are (in my experience) those who don't have an > automated dependency management system, > so having special maven artifacts won't help them. > It could be useful to document what modules are needed for each use > case by providing short descriptions for each jar. > > Sanne > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
