there seem to be plenty of wars which include dependencies in repository.apache.org
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2014 4:25 PM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > OSGi was the most obvious choice at the time but we stayed away due to > the > > tooling/cost/benefit. > > > > Might be worth revisiting. I know the specter of OSGi is raised every time > classpath woes surface in Hadoop-land. > > > Our simple goal was for those building extensions to easily produce > bundles > > of their code and associated dependencies. > > > > Building uber jars was generally considered non-desirable because we did > > not want to change the structure of the extension or dependent jars. > > > > +1 for continuing to avoid uber jars. > > > The assembly plugin might in fact be totally sufficient for our purposes. > > It requires some extra steps for the client but those are probably > > completely automated by maven archetypes. > > > > Reworking things so that nar becomes a kind of assembly is an interesting > idea. Do we have docs on the expectations the runtime has for a nar? > > > In any event we recognize the current nar concept is problematic because > > nobody is going to want us publishing nar artifact bundles to maven > repos. > > So we're looking at what we should do. > > > > I don't see why publishing nars would be a problem. Other projects publish > tarballs (source and binary) and things go well. >
