On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is that you are asking the end
developer to cope w/. He must grok what is the current correct
collection of versions are. Even if all the APIs mature and their
version numbers never change thereafter, there
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:07 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is that you are asking the end
developer to cope w/. He must grok what is the current correct
collection of versions are. Even if all the APIs mature and
On 1/30/2006 11:07 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is that you are asking the end
developer to cope w/. He must grok what is the current correct
collection of versions are. Even if all the APIs mature and their
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be unable
to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you can suggest
a way to make it easy to find out which individual spec jars are
aggregated into the uber-spec jar, I
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On 1/30/2006 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:07 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is that you are asking the end
developer to cope w/.
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies, would
the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
For maven 2 all we need is an uber pom. For people on maven 1 and
ant and plain IDEs, an uber jar is nice.
-David
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:37 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be
unable to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you can
suggest a way to make it easy to find out which individual
On Jan 30, 2006, at 2:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On 1/30/2006 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:07 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:44 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:37 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be
unable to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you
can
On Jan 30, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote, On 1/30/2006 11:39 AM:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies,
would the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
For maven 2 all we need is an
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies, would
the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
Last time I checked Ant has quite a few users and so did Maven 1.
Having an aggregate jar for those users is pretty nice.
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be unable
to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you can suggest
a way to make it easy to find out which individual spec jars are
aggregated into the uber-spec jar, I
@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT -- more opinions please!
David Blevins wrote, On 1/30/2006 11:39 AM:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies, would
the the need for an Uber jar be obviated
This may not be an issue.. I am wondering whether uber jars could
complicate security in the future.
For example, we could provide sample/default security policies to be
used by a security manager (that assume the individual jars are being
used) that use CodeSource and Principal based
14 matches
Mail list logo
