 |
 |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Mark Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Peter W. Draper wrote: > > > OK, so plan B would be to separate the application jar file classpath from > > the classpath needed to compile against a package, i.e. split treeview > > into a treeview.jar file that is really empty, but has the current > > classpath and treeview-parts.jar (or whatever) that has all the source > > code and compile-time classpath. This is what we do for the webstart > > stuff! > > Good thinking, that would do it. It would probably be more logical > to require SPLAT and TOPCAT to have the dummy jars rather than Treeview, > since those are the ones which are behaving badly (referencing > post-built packages). > > However. Over the years the amount of effort spent working around > the fact that treeview is an (application+library) trying to get out > is probably reaching the amount of effort required to actually get > off my arse and split it in two, so I think I'll take this opportunity > to have a serious look at this. OK, you'll not get any arguments out of me. Peter.