On 6/12/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/12/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For maximum user benefit, it's nice to ship sample apps "ready to run", with > all their dependent jars included. But with four apps already, that would > mean lots of jar files duplicated -- which would really bloat an all-in-one > download. For the Ant based builds, I took the tack of creating several > kinds of artifacts: > > * A zip of the framework itself (library jars, sources, javadocs) > > * A zip of the dependencies (which Maven will eliminate the need for I think 'jars without dependencies' is possible. Asking for the dependencies, but not the jar they came from, might be more difficult. Could the second one be a library distribution of Shale + dependencies?
Right now we're creating the framework distro with all the Shale jars + the dependencies ... that seems like the most convenient packaging for a non-Maven user, and the size is currently just over 9mb, which shouldn't be any big deal. (Interestingly, the Shale part of that is < 400k ... it's nice to not have to implement everything JSF already provides :-). So I don't really see a need for a separate dependencies-only distro.
* A war file for each example (ideally with a buildable source module > and javadocs for the application classes included inside). It's usually WEB-INF/src for the sources, but I haven't seen Javadocs in a .war file. WEB-INF/apidocs? (There's an example of copying the sources in Struts Action, probably in apps/pom.xml.)
The other way we could do this would be build a "src/main/assembly" directory for each webapp, and package sources/javadocs/war file with the POM in the expected place (top level directory). It's marginally more complicated for someone to have to extract the WAR, but the project would look like an out-of-the-box Maven module. --
Wendy
Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
