cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Radical structure reorg thoughts for 2.3....
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:32:15 GMT
On 1/25/10 16:21, 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, ..."

Wouldn't the CXF version imply the plugin version? Unless they can be 
updated independently in the field after release. In which case, you'd 
end up with the same situation that Linux distributions have, which 
seems to work. This is the nature of modules.

 From my [outsider] point of view, releasing new versions of unchanged 
modules just to keep their version numbers in sync seems to defeat some 
of the reasons of having separate modules in the first place (i.e., 
avoiding unnecessary recompiling and repackaging).

-> richard

> 2) same as above
>
> 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.
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message