I agree. James, as an end-user product, is not necessarily going to be downloaded by people who have any idea about jars. They will expect James to run out-of-the box.
Therefore we have to bundle all dependance jars with James, therfore why not maintain a repository with the correct versions, and if that repository is cvs it too can benefit from the same version control. I know binaries in CVS is officially frowned upon, but I dont care, for us it makes sense (of a sort). An alternative is to produce lite versions of distributions which save on downloads by not including common jars. d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 02 February 2003 23:01 > To: James-Dev Mailing List > Subject: Download jars instead of keeping in CVS? > > > Is this something we ought to consider using in the future? I still think > we want to have some form of turnkey binary release. > > --- Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 17:17 > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: [A4] release plan thoughts > > [...] > > > For Ant, there is a RuperTask that is able to download the jars from a > > repository like the maven ibiblio one and eventually set them on the ant > > classpath too. If the files are already in the local repository, it > > doesn't download them. > > > I'd propose we use that now to get our jars instead of putting them in > CVS. > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
