Hi Kevin,I have no issues with having both fat and skinny jars, and multiple ways to configure both fat and skinny jars.
I do suggest that if the identical information is in two places (the pom and the easier to find/read place) there is the opportunity for them to get out of sync.
I don't know if anyone has ever done so, but perhaps a simple xsl script could scan the pom and extract just the info you're looking for. Myself, I found that the pom was easy enough to scan by eye to find the dependencies...[assuming it's a maven 1 pom that includes all recursive dependencies, unlike maven 2]
Craig On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
How about a very low tech approach. Create a file as part of the deployment (or a web page for that matter), which lists every dependency, the appropriate version (or range of versions), and the URL of the place to get the jar. We do that in our ownproject so thatwe can easily track what we are using and where we got it from.Doesn't the cayenne maven pom do this?It does . . . providing you're familiar with maven and know what you're looking for. Before I started using maven, I had no clue that this wasthe case. So, +1 for making it easier to find/read. Even still, as a new user, I really don't want to be bothered with chasing dependencies. For most smaller apps, I still use the fat JAR just because it's very simple. Granted, the other approach isn't difficult, per se . . . -- Kevin
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
