cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <>
Subject Re: Distribution Thoughts
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:27:08 GMT
Daniel Kulp wrote:

>On Monday October 16 2006 5:02 pm, Oisin Hurley wrote:
>>Also in general, people
>>who are working for ISVs that are forming infrastructure bundles
>>for their own products fall into the second camp. 
>However, these are also the same people that dislike a bundle jar as it 
>makes it nearly impossible for them to bundle the "subset" of the 
>functionality that they really need.   Example, if they want to "remove" 
>the JMS code.   In anycase, they would already need to copy a BUNCH of 
>jars (saaj-*.jar, jaxb*.jar, jaxws-api.jar, etc...) in addition to 
>cxf-bundle-2.0-incubator-M1.jar.     So, it's a difference of 44 jars 
>versus 71 jars right now. (for everything)
First, if people want to do the module approach they still can - they 
just need to include the specific modules they want. Second, most people 
won't need all the dependencies, so its most likely a difference of 25 
jars instead of 10.

>For that type of user, I think it's best to help them use the tools to 
>allow them to "select" the functionality that they need.   If they use 
>Maven 2, it's easy.   If they use Ant, we could help with docs explaining 
>how to use the maven2 extensions to ant.   If they use Maven and not put 
>a dependency on the JMS plugin, the 71 reduces itself by a LOT as all the 
>JMS/ActiveMQ/derby/etc... stuff doesn't get sucked in.
>In anycase, I would "ignore" the bundle jar for now.   If a specific use 
>case/user request comes in, we can evaluate if it's best to try the 
>bundle jar or best to work with the person to use the maven/ant stuff or 
>similar.    If we never get a request, no harm done.
You are exhibiting a bit of a bias against the status quo. If we had a 
bundle jar and no manifest jar would you feel the same way? How about I 
switch the build around and then we wait for a user request?

I'm not saying that we should do that, I'm saying that is not good logic 
to put an end to the thread.
- Dan

Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC

View raw message