Henri Yandell wrote:
I long since stopped using either the src or the binary download. I
get all my commons jars from either ibiblio or my local maven
repository, and I use the online javadoc. :)
Do you not use an IDE?
One of the main IDE advantages that I make use of is the ability to jump
Brett Porter wrote:
Doesn't the source zip required by an IDE usually need to be baed at the
same level as a JAR?
Not for Eclipse. Not sure about other IDEs.
The approach we're taking with Maven is to publish a source JAR (and
Javadoc JAR) that accompanies the binary JAR.
I assume thats
+1 I can't remember how many times I forget, and need to go back to
get the source, or the bin.
Alternatively make sure that the SRC distro always contains a
prebuilt jar inside it. That way you either need just the bin
release (lightweight, just the JAR ma'am), or the src with the jar
+1.
In my head I think of these pieces:
commons-xxx-src.zip
All sources needed to produce other pieces.
commons-xxx-bin.zip
Runtime only, no source, no Javadoc, just the *runtime*.
commons-xxx-dev.zip (or ide)
What I need to use the component for my development (source
Doesn't the source zip required by an IDE usually need to be baed at the
same level as a JAR?
ie
org/apache/commons/foo/Foo.java
where in -src that is usually under src/...
I'm not sure how that would site with an IDE though - perhaps include
both those JARs in a single -dev zip.
The approach
Not sure why we have two downloads anyway. The src is usually
relatively small compared to the binary; is it to just to avoid
confusing the user?
Problem with Brett's 3-download approach is that when we say src we
don't mean src, we mean buildable. Just having the src in a jar
doesn't help
