So far I'm unconvinced, so no.
On 16 February 2012 08:49, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf_at_redhat.com> wrote:
> I fail to see the advantage over packaging an ear.
> Or is this an "our build tool sucks, let's 'fix' the specification" bit?
>
> Carlo
>
>
> On 02/16/2012 12:54 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>
>> Experts,
>>
>> I'd like to close on this item. Please vote yes or no. If you'd rather
>> continue the discussion, feel free to do so as well.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>
>>> We did see users who had their EJB module packaged with jars inside a jar
>>> and were surprised it's not supported.
>>>
>>> -marina
>>>
>>> Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do we actually have any users who've asked for this? Otherwise, I think
>>>> it's unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Feb 2012, at 01:14, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Experts,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you know, while it's easy to package a library into a .war file or a
>>>>> .ear archive, there is no easy way to do the same for a stand-alone EJB
>>>>> module in a portable way. The only current option is to use a reference by
>>>>> adding a Class-Path attribute to the Manifest file of the EJB .jar file (or
>>>>> another referenced archive) but this is not portable as it requires to place
>>>>> referenced library in the specific location of the application server file
>>>>> system (in case that .jar file is not used from its original location).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you thing the EJB spec should allow an EJB .jar file to have a lib/
>>>>> directory inside it? If yes, will there be any restrictions that we will
>>>>> need to address?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> -marina
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>