On Tuesday 07 December 2004 18:53, Erik Hatcher wrote: > On Dec 7, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Bill Janssen wrote: ... > JAR manifests, while certainly not leveraged this way by most, were > designed to contain versioning information. ... > I'm merely discussing the options. We've had the version information > in the manifest already and was wondering why that isn't good enough. > You've certainly given some reasons why you feel it is not good enough. > > What do others think?
To me manifest-based approach has the benefit that it's the actual standard way of including version information, and has been available at least since JDK 1.2. Having dummy version class seems more like a hack to me; and something that automated tools would be less likely to be able to use (manifest-based one should be something that any jar-aware tool should know how to use), as they'd need to either guess name (possibly iterating over all the classes in a jar), or know specific location for specic jars. However, if practical problems make manifest-based approach less attractive an option, version class may is probably ok too. I guess it all comes down to actual existing use cases that real users have, if any; and how well/badly approaches work for them. Just my 2c, -+ Tatu +- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
