Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: markspace Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: two JARs Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:29:53 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <69022de5-1be1-42a1-8c2b-2c5c8f96d532@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fba3415ba68d85d643935af2f52f0b4b"; logging-data="9035"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GGFfLp8Yg8ll5ceHvMHp3X+kRpyMcqCo=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:S8dXIl27nY/V3VmdMpvSVijARV8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:22435 On 2/21/2013 3:45 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 02/21/2013 07:34 PM, markspace wrote: >> On 2/21/2013 3:12 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> >>> >>> Why unzip either? >> >> >> Well, for the "sources" one, compilers don't deal with source files >> inside a Zip/Jar file. >> > No, but that's not typically what they are for - they are, in my > experience, used to inspect source in an IDE, where you attach them as > JARs. Providing the source JARs for a library is better for 3rd party > code inspection than decompiling, which is imperfect. Oh I see what you're saying. I'm used to Zip files for source "archives," but since the formats are basically identical I can see Java programmers using the Jar format for the same thing.