abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Extensions module: one jar or many?
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:54:18 GMT
Perhaps all extensions that have an associated Internet-Draft or RFC can
be bundled into a single core extension module; the rest can go into
individual jars (e.g. a geo jar, an opensearch jar, etc)

- James

Stephen Duncan wrote:
> +1
> 
> I think I'd prefer that any extensions with minimal (no non-Abdera?)
> dependencies & for a open-standard (not vendor-specific) extension stay
> together as a core extensions jar.  Or perhaps if there's a logical
> difference between things like bidi & thread vs. opensearch in terms of type
> of extension or scope?
> 
> -Stephen
> 
> On 8/20/07, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>> On 8/20/07, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The extensions module is growing.  This is a good thing :-).  Currently,
>>> a single extensions jar is built that contains all of the extensions.
>>> This makes distribution and deployment easy but requires that folks ship
>>> code that they are potentially not using.  One possible solution is to
>>> generate multiple extension jars (one per extension).  I have no real
>>> preference either way.  What say y'all?
>> Alternatively we could split the difference, have a core set of
>> extensions that go in a main jar, then split out others.  Possible
>> criteria for splitting something out might be that it's new and
>> experimental, or that it depends on external code in a manner that's
>> irritating to users (i.e. if I have to pull in a gigantic third party
>> dependency just for having something around, I'd like it to be a
>> separate jar, although I suppose this is largely my C background
>> talking, and such things don't happen as much in Java land).
>>
>> -garrett
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message