I myself like the war overlay idea as this allow not just JS to be
packaged, but also any static resources, like css stylesheets :
consider webapp skins, maanged as separate projects, and applied to
all apps in a company !
BUT I don't like that it cannot be used with lightweight servlet
engine jet
nicolas de loof wrote:
What would be the better way to package JS libs ?
- option 1 : use existing WAR packaging with war overlay
good : Works today with no change, just requires us to agree on a
common folder for scripts
bad : cannot be used with jetty:run as the weapp is not packaged
-
> repository under your web context.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich
>
> -Original Message-
> From: nicolas de loof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 28 September 2007 15:10
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: recommandation for JS packaging ? (was Using maven for
&
I started tinkering with the war overlay method just a few days ago, so I
may be missing some things. But so far it seems like a flexible enough
solution that it would be a good way to go.
I like it because:
* can use it today
* flexibility to put resources anywhere in the app one might need
* t
e it from your local
repository under your web context.
Cheers,
Rich
-Original Message-
From: nicolas de loof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 September 2007 15:10
To: Maven Users List
Subject: recommandation for JS packaging ? (was Using maven for
JavaScript projects)
What would be the bett
What would be the better way to package JS libs ?
- option 1 : use existing WAR packaging with war overlay
good : Works today with no change, just requires us to agree on a
common folder for scripts
bad : cannot be used with jetty:run as the weapp is not packaged
- option 2 : use js package
