Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
I would be very tempted to veto any approach that had the jars
containing different code to that built in the classes directory and
usually(?) used for testing by developers. I believe it increases the
chance for problems being introduced in this process but not caught.
Does this mean you would object to both of Kathey's proposed options?
Obfuscator-type modification of the binaries, or ant-based
preprocessing of the source? It wasn't totally clear from this mail if
that was the case.
Both, any solution where the content of the jar files does not match the
content of a non-jar build.
I'm with Dan on this - one of the advantages we have is openness and
post-compilation modification of the binary is quite the opposite.
--
Jeremy
