Hi Nick, actually it doesn't matter if we use Ant or Maven to build it, in both cases a source distribution and the binaries will be released. As someone intending on using BlazeDS you wouldn't know the difference (Ok ... when looking into the jar files you will have one pom.xml in the META-INF directory, but that's about all that would be different.
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Nicholas Kwiatkowski [mailto:nicho...@spoon.as] Gesendet: Samstag, 13. Dezember 2014 17:24 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [BlazeDS] First Apache Flex BlazeDS Release: (was Re: AW: BlazeDS not compiling for clean copy of SDK source) Maybe we offer it via a Mavel release for those that want to build from source, and offer a binary download. That should take care of both major use cases, I think. -Nick On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/13/14, 4:31 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > >So if you guys haven't got any objections, I would try starting the > >release process. > >But I would initiate the Maven release and not use the Ant stuff. > > No objections from me, and I don’t think it matters to me whether you > use Maven or Ant, but I’m wondering: > > 1) Are there enough BlazeDS customers who will need the Ant stuff to > work for some reason. > 2) Whether the BlazeDS customers will want a non-Maven way of getting > all of the jars, like in one zip. > 3) Whether the BlazeDS customers will expect a WAR and/or other old > Adobe-style packaging with Tomcat and various example apps. > > I changed the subject on this thread in hopes of getting feedback from > folks. I can try to help with the Ant stuff if folks really want it. > > -Alex > > >
