Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-abdera-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 97978 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2007 18:58:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2007 18:58:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 78459 invoked by uid 500); 20 Aug 2007 18:58:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-abdera-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 78435 invoked by uid 500); 20 Aug 2007 18:58:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact abdera-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 78426 invoked by uid 99); 20 Aug 2007 18:58:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:58:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jasnell@gmail.com designates 209.85.162.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.162.179] (HELO el-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.162.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:58:03 +0000 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id y26so167979ele for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qkvFOgCfEkwTK2+1yvvHXoupK5A6PG4qSHWKXF3e3fy4bNN+6zUDjseAexYktQhhikZUz96ZgfnHqxXrC0l/XlAkNei48kAO/7Zen95YfCotHxLTgPoAka/uq95EbDCh05Mxf6kW3HMQRG8QsXT53rqsA+uPQjx4p3w5QmvsrG4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=W3mZqguAxXaGRSls8ENaLF30/56kjSKWP8flNV2cPQepffgYcOxbRFiVje4u79lPSJV1gjkR1cgobQDq1rRFAz7/NqbTc8UVUD+IWL6OXVjkCLxgKlqBPi1+gTtc3muXoWsdz3u2H0aumm1OgjVH6Cozg9xTStO0zF8EqNvcs34= Received: by 10.142.174.8 with SMTP id w8mr618504wfe.1187636262051; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.108? ( [67.181.218.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6sm1827179wrm.2007.08.20.11.57.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46C9E41A.2040306@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:57:30 -0700 From: James M Snell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Extensions module: one jar or many? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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? - James