Yes, see under "Possible future development"
on http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Common+Contrib+Build
We have a stated goal of having "Aggregate projects that package many
contrib libraries in one distribution."
The process and arrangement of these aggregate projects has yet to be
determi
Hi,
Am 23.12.2010 um 00:08 schrieb Stuart Halloway:
> Nothing about multiple small bundles prevents doing a bigger bundled release
> as well. There continues to be a "kitchen sink" contrib, and there can be a
> "batteries included" build of the newer libs too. Repositories are orthogonal
> to
Nothing about multiple small bundles prevents doing a bigger bundled release as
well. There continues to be a "kitchen sink" contrib, and there can be a
"batteries included" build of the newer libs too. Repositories are orthogonal
to build artifacts.
On the other hand, building only a big bundl
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Mibu wrote:
> For me as a user, the appeal of contrib was the bundling.
...
> If you separate the libs then I can't see a difference or advantage
> from the "third party" libs.
When I first started using Clojure, I felt the bundling was very
useful. Over time, I'
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Mibu wrote:
> For me as a user, the appeal of contrib was the bundling. I used to
> just download the latest contrib jar, throw it in the classpath, and
> have plenty of functionality that could be easily summoned using a
> single line of code. Just like a standard
For me as a user, the appeal of contrib was the bundling. I used to
just download the latest contrib jar, throw it in the classpath, and
have plenty of functionality that could be easily summoned using a
single line of code. Just like a standard library, even though it's
not officially standard. It
