|
From: <squ...@xe...> - 2005-06-21 03:53:36
|
Glenn, It would seem that what I've built can not be considered a "better" solution given your criteria. I built the Jar Bundle using an Apple Supplied tool called "Jar Bundler". This tool can take a Pure Java Application and bundle it with some description files into a special .app directory structure. This special directory presents to the Mac user as a single executable. When double-clicked, this Bundle executes the underlying Java Application. This is similar in concept to a Windows .bat file that executes a Java Application using "start" or javaw.exe but since the entire structure is shipped as one unit you don't have the issues of broken paths when the Application is moved from one drive/partition/directory to another. My mechanism for Bundling SQuirreL for the Mac *IS* dependent on doing the final build step (the Bundling step) on a Mac. However, what we gain by doing this final step is a version of SQuirreL that is byte-code compatible with the code created by the current squirrel-sql-1.2beta6-install.jar, which can be launched by double clicking on the "App File" or a shortcut, and which can live on the "Dock" bar. I have not seen Neville's ant build solution yet, but I expect that some special processing steps are performed in the build process, and that launching the resulting SQuirreL application will require opening a shell, cd'ing to a special directory and running a shell or ant script to bring up the application. From an ease-of-use standpoint double-clicking beats command line when the interface is a GUI (IMNSHO). But perhaps Neville has a technique that I don't know about (there's lots about the Mac that I don't know). FWIW, removing the .bat and .sh files was not necessary, but since I was building by hand I removed the extraneous items (sort of like someone who, while creating a Windows-specific distribution, might be tempted to remove the .sh file). Mike On Jun 20, 2005, at 4:03 PM, gwg wrote: > Hi folks, > > Let me chime in with my 2 cents. > > - Mike and Neville have each come up with a method of getting SquirreL to run > on the Mac. These ways differ from each other. I do not understand either of > them because I am not familiar with the Mac. > > - I would like Mike and Neville each to look at what the other one has done > and decide together which is better for us to use and how to integrate it into > the product. > > - My criteria for "better" includes a "requirement" that Gerd or I can create > the package as part of the standard Ant build on a non-Mac machine. This > means that no Mac-only tools be part of the process. It would probably be > best to have a separate "build Mac" target which gets included in the standard > "build release" target. > > - It is important that the Mac build not be dependant on a 3rd party (ie: > someone other than the administrator) to build so that it can be done in an > atomic fashion, and thus avoid the possibility of having slightly different > versions on the different machines. > > - I would prefer to not have to delete things as part of the Mac product > build. If the build requires deleting things such as shell scripts from the > product, then so be it, but the standard product already contains startup > scripts for both Linux and Windows, andthere is no problem because of that. So > unless there is a conflict that forces the Mac version to not have the other > pieces, I say leave them in. > > - All other things being equal, I would tend to prefer the solution that is > already integrated in the Ant script and already in CVS. If there is a > simpler solution, then by all means let's use it, but if there is no gain to > be had by changing what is there, the let's leave it alone. > > Mike and Neville: Can you coordinate and build the appropriate Ant target? > Thanks. > > Glenn |
