cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Radical structure reorg thoughts for 2.3....
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:38:47 GMT
On Mon January 25 2010 4:21:47 pm Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> some comments:
> 1) If you want to give these modules owwn version I think you should
> move them out of the main cxf tree as it would be confusing if part of
> the tree behaves differently.
> I would versioning like it is though. I think it does not hurt to build
> new versions with each release. It also is easier for people searching
> support to say "I use cxf 2.2.5" instead of  "I use cxf 2.2.5, xjc
> 2.1.1, ..."
> 2) same as above

For both of these, when I said subproject, I meant a proper subproject like 
the DOSGi stuff.     Not in the main tree, separate "trunk" area for them.

Part of the reason is to reduce the number of modules and stuff that are 
sucked into and setup in eclipse.  When someone first tries to get CXF into 
eclipse, it's a TON of modules.   Very daunting.   The xjc stuff and 
buildtools is about 12 of those, yet provides very little toward actually 
developing "CXF proper".  


> 3) I am very positive of having a cxf-core that does not need other cxf
> modules.
> Ideally the core should need no other dependencies at all. spring-core
> has no dependencies and camel-core has three dependencies. Only cxf-core
> has 23 dependencies. No one can tell me that the core of cxf must be so
> large. I also know that it is not easy to achieve this from the point
> where we are now.
> Apart from the effort needed to do backports for older version the
> restructuring will probably also create incompatibilities. Still I think
> it will be worth it.
> Greetings
> Christian
> Am 25.01.2010 21:32, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
> > I'd like everyone's thoughts on some ideas I have to do some minor
> > restructuring for 2.3.  I'm just throwing this out there as some ideas.  
> > We don't need to do any of this if people disagree or would find it
> > annoying or similar.   I just want peoples thoughts....
> >
> > 1) We have a bunch of xjc plugins in common/xjc that really never change.
> > There really isn't a reason to have a 2.3 version and a 2.2.6 version and
> > such.   They are pretty much completely shareable.    Thus, I'm thinking
> > of creating an "xjc-plugins" sub-project to house these.  We could just
> > release them once and re-use them until new plugins are needed/created.  
> > common/xsd (our xjc wrapper maven plugin) would probably go there as
> > well.
> >
> > 2) Likewise, buildtools and maven-plugins/xml2fastinfoset-*  are really
> > RARELY changed.   I'd like to have a "build-tools" subproject for these
> > type things. This is partially to support (1) above so the checkstyle
> > rules and such are more shareable, but it also would remove a few modules
> > from the build.
> >
> > 3) Most radical idea:   I'd like to merge what's left in common/*  after
> > (1) into api.   Possibly also merge parts or all of rt/core into API.  
> > If we do that, possibly just rename api to "cxf-kernel" or make it
> > cxf-core or similar. common-utilities, api, and core are really not
> > useable without each other at all.   You cannot do much without all three
> > so merging them together seems to make some sense.    POSSIBLY
> > tools-common as well.   I  need to look into that one a bit more.    We
> > COULD potentially move some stuff OUT of api/rt-core that is more ws
> > specific (like the wsdl manager stuff) and into a ws-core or something
> > that wouldn't be needed for JAX-RS.   Not sure how much of an impact that
> > would have.
> >
> > Doing 3 MAY allow better OSGi support as we really would have a "kernel"
> > with pretty much EVERYTHING else being plugins into our kernel.
> >
> > There will be a slight build speedup as less modules are built and less
> > calls to checkstyle and such, but nothing major as a majority is in the
> > systests. Now that we've gone with Surefire 2.5, I MAY experiment with
> > the parallel setting on a couple of the module, probably cannot on the
> > systests though.
> >
> > Now, the MAIN drawback from all this would be merging fixes to 2.2.x is
> > going to be much harder in those modules.   I think that would mostly
> > affect me though.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to know what people think about all this.

Daniel Kulp

View raw message