json.jar (post 0.3.0)

[James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>]

It seems to me that since we're now packaging extension jars separately,
we could probably get away with merging the json.jar we're building in
dependencies with the json extension and just ship a single jar.  The
package names would stay the same.  Whatcha think?

- James

Re: json.jar (post 0.3.0)

[Brian Moseley <bc...@osafoundation.org>]

On 8/31/07, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My feelings exactly ;-)  I really like Ant... it's simple, easy and gets
> the job done.

laugh. i could say the same thing about maven :D

Re: json.jar (post 0.3.0)

[James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>]

Dan Diephouse wrote:
> [snip]
> "we hate Maven" feelings :-).
> 

My feelings exactly ;-)  I really like Ant... it's simple, easy and gets
the job done.

- James

Re: json.jar (post 0.3.0)

[Dan Diephouse <da...@mulesource.com>]

James M Snell wrote:
> It seems to me that since we're now packaging extension jars separately,
> we could probably get away with merging the json.jar we're building in
> dependencies with the json extension and just ship a single jar.  The
> package names would stay the same.  Whatcha think?
>
> - James
>   
Sounds good - maven will still publish the module jars for us in case 
people want to use them. This is probably a stupid question - but does 
the json jar ever change? Could we just release the jar once and be done 
with it?

On a related topic - what do people think about consolidating to just 
one build system (preferrably maven). The maven build would need some 
cleanup, like the addition of a module which builds a single jar, but 
thats easy enough for someone to do. I'll volunteer to get it into shape 
if people are down with this, but I'm pretty sure this will elicit some 
"we hate Maven" feelings :-).

- Dan

-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog