Sorry for not being explicit. ;-)
I say no. Let's not <sarcasm>fix</sarcasm> this is in the spec.
Carlo
On 02/16/2012 10:11 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>