On 6/25/05, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop
> > point 12.
>
> "12. The subproject will also provide a single JAR of all stable package
> releases. It may also provide a second JAR
robert burrell donkin wrote:
this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop
point 12.
"12. The subproject will also provide a single JAR of all stable package
releases. It may also provide a second JAR with a subset of only JDK 1.1
compatible releases. A gump of nightly
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of
a release for archival purposes?
I think that in the early (actually as recently as a year or so ago)
days of Jakarta Commons, a "combo jar" was produced that included *all*
of the commons compone
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a
> > thing ;-)
>
> this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop
> point 1
I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of
a release for archival purposes?
I would like to see this project adopt the packaging scheme my own Java
Web Parts project has in that each actual Java package is JAR'd
separately. That way a developer can easily pick and ch
I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of
a release for archival purposes?
I would like to see this project adopt the packaging scheme my own Java
Web Parts project has in that each actual Java package is JAR'd
separately. That way a developer can easily pick and
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a
> thing ;-)
this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop
point 12.
- robert
--8<---
