|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
Although excluding would fix the problem, a project like guvnor would first need to realize it has a problem.
In practice, most projects don't realize it and end up putting both jars on the classpath.
If one has the following jar names in it's classpath "weld-core, weld-se, weld-se-core" it's hard to realize that 2 of those 3 are duplicates.
No user actually prefers the shaded jar over the non shaded one (AFAIK - counterproof is welcome). But I 've seen other developers unintentionally add the shaded jar in droolsjbpm again (mixing it with the non-shaded one), because they didn't understood the difference between weld-se and weld-se-core by looking at their artifactId's.
In short, the shaded weld jar is as convenient as a gun pointed at one's own foot