[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1203?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17214209#comment-17214209
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1203:
------------------------------------------------
[~vorburger] I think 2 artifacts are actually OK; my personal preference is
actually the JAR artifact, but I can see that some users might want to deploy
Fineract in an existing infrastructure (JBoss, Jetty, Undertow...); I would
actually strip all Spring Boot startup magic from the WAR file. That way we
could say JAR = batteries included, WAR = requires an Java application
container.
> Fix broken Executable WAR (and unify & ditch Executable JAR?)
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FINERACT-1203
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1203
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael Vorburger
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: war.log
>
>
> I've noticed that the WAR we build is not a traditional Tomcat only WAR, but
> a Spring Boot Executable WAR - but a broken one! :( Whereas our Executable
> JAR works of course, our WAR with {{java -jar
> fineract-provider/build/libs/fineract-provider.war}} fails to start, see
> attached {{war.log}}.
> [~ptuomola] and [~aleks] perhaps this is something one of you would like to
> look into?
> If you can fix this, then it poses the question why we would build and
> document and distribute and support two different artifacts. My vote, if this
> can be fixed, could be to unify on only having a (both "traditional AND
> Executable") WAR and no JAR. Unless there are reasons why that may be stupid,
> and both are useful, even if the problem above was fixed. Thoughts?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
