cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Distribution questions
Date Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:00:35 GMT

> > I have a few questions about the Celtixfire distribution project -
> >
> > I think some of these might be bugs -
> >
> > 1 - the distribution project does not get built when the rest
> > of CXF is built
> [Bozhong Lin] we consiously make this way since we do not want kit building
> to be done every time when developers are doing regular build during
> development, since this would add longer time to regular build. If one
> needs kit, one can switch to "distribution" and do the kit building. What
> does other people think about this? do we need to include kit building in
> top level POM?

It might be nice to have a -Pkits profile for the top level pom that would do 
it all in one shot.   That's pretty easy to do.   Not a big deal either way 

I've actually considered moving the system tests to a separate profile as 

> > 2 - it's not clear which of the files in the target directory
> > are the ones to be deployed
> [Bozhong Lin] cxf-2.0-incubator-M1-SNAPSHOT-bin.jar is the only jar needs
> to be deployed.

Also, the:
is the source distribution.   

> > 3 - should the manifest of cxf.jar have the name of the
> > installer class in it as the Main-Class
> [Bozhong Lin] cxf.jar is the facade jar that will find all jars needed by
> runtime, so one only needs to set classpath to cxf.jar and it will take
> care of the rest.

Right.   It's primary use is as a facade jar in the kits.   (BTW: it needs to 
be renamed to cxf-incubator.jar at a minimum)

However, the manifest is "shared" with the installers.   We COULD split the 
distribution build into to poms, one to create the manifest jar and another 
to do the final packaging.   That could avoid some of that.   It's not a 
critical issue though so we haven't looked at it at all.  If it's not broke, 
don't spend time fixing it.

> > 5 - should the distribution directory be called cxf instead
> > of celtixfire
> [Bozhong Lin] that can be changed. What do other folks think about this? we
> basically have three options for installed directory name: CXF, cxf, and
> celtixfire. If we adopt CXF or cxf directory name, "CeltiXfire" name
> effectively dies.

I would say "cxf" to match everything else at this point.   CXF would be 
extremely "unusual" on a unix box.   Unix folks tend to not like capital 
letters in directory names.

J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001

View raw message