I hold to the notion that the ".jar" should only be used for Java libraries intended to be placed in one's classpath, etc -- or for executable jars, including those that run an installer when executed.
Otherwise the ".zip" extension should be used to signify that this is but a collection of files and is not intended to serve as a Java library. By this logic, one should have foo-bin.zip and foo-src.zip, for instance -- a distribution pattern which you'll find is very common. foo-bin.zip will contain any jars to be used at runtime, plus documentation and examples in most cases -- though sometimes you'll find a distribution that is separated out into foo-bin.zip, foo-doc.zip, and foo-src.zip. -- Jess Holle BoD wrote: > Lots of libraries (in particular, those built using maven) use the > "-sources" suffix. > Actually they also include the version in the file name which is also a > very good idea, eg: foo-1.12.jar and foo-1.12-sources.jar. > > BoD > > > carl wrote: > >> It's nice to deliver libraries with source available to help people >> debug. But instead of putting the source in the same jar, it's better >> to put it in a second jar with a _src suffix. E.g. foo.jar and >> foo_src.jar. >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
