You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com> on 2007/07/30 02:39:01 UTC

manifest jar name

Why is the manifest jar named with a different convention than the
others?

RE: manifest jar name

Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com>.

Howcome that thought process doesn't apply to the other cxf jar, which
does have a number? And does Apache really force the silly token
'incubator' into every jar name?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 11:20 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: manifest jar name
> 
> i.e. without the version name? I think the idea is that people can
just
> depend on the manifest jar and not have to change any settings in
their
> build when they upgrade CXF. They'll just drop in a new manifest jar
which
> will point to the new version.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Dan
> 
> On 7/29/07, Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why is the manifest jar named with a different convention than the
> > others?
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Re: manifest jar name

Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.

i.e. without the version name? I think the idea is that people can just
depend on the manifest jar and not have to change any settings in their
build when they upgrade CXF. They'll just drop in a new manifest jar which
will point to the new version.

Cheers,
- Dan

On 7/29/07, Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com> wrote:
>
> Why is the manifest jar named with a different convention than the
> others?
>
>

-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog