> Chris Pratt wrote:
>
> > I'd have to agree with you on the proliferation of extensions for the
same
> > file format. So far we have zip, jar, ear, and war. How many do we
really
> > need. I can see the distinction between zip and jar, the jar extension
> > indicates that the program should look for the special contents. But
the
> > ear and war files should just be additional manifest entries IMHO.
> > (*Chris*)
> >
>
> Scenario: I want to have my OS map "*.jar" files to execute the JVM when
they
> are double clicked (because they have an application main program in
them),
> but I want to start my web-app deployer tool when I double-click a "*.war"
> file. How do I do that if I'm using the same file extension for both?
>
> Until the OSs are smarter about looking inside a file (and, in the case at
> hand, understanding the JAR file format and the rules for what makes
something
> a web-app versus not), filename extensions per purpose seem to be the way
to
> go.
>
> Craig McClanahan
Jar's already have different contents. As well as Java Apps, there's also
class libraries and applets, neither of which can be executed by the os.
Having web apps with a jar extension wouldn't make this any worse.
Personally, I'm against extension proliferation :)
Jon.
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
