On Jul 19, 2007, at 1:00 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
Hmm . . . I thought we were going to continue provide fat JARs for simplicity in deploying. Is this not the case?
Can't find the thread right away, and not sure if we had a formal vote on this (this was definitely discussed at some point), but as of now we don't. Instead there's a "third-party" directory where we place what was in the fat JAR (to make it clear what's needed and to give users more control over the third-party versions).
Also, zip archives are more common for Windows machines than gzip'd tarballs are. Not a big deal with any modern archive utility, but something to consider for the final deployment.
Agreed - while there's no technical advantage to zip, tar.gz may scare some Windows users :-)
Andrus
