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 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:34:36 GMT

Since there were not any objections or anything, I'll go ahead and start 
working on some of this.   



On Mon February 1 2010 3:41:53 pm Daniel Kulp wrote:
> It looks like we have a semi-concensus at least for the first two parts.
> Basically, create a subproject for the xjc related stuff to kind of be a
>  more "open" jaxb-commons type thing.   (and the build-utils subproject to
>  support both this and the normal cxf stuff and potentially dosgi as well).
> If there are no objections, I'll start working on that on Wednesday.  Thus,
> speak up if you object.   (or, speak up if you think we need a formal vote
>  on this.   I'm happy with lazy concensus, but if someone wants a formal
>  vote, I'd be happy to do that as well).
> We can tackle #3 separately.
> Dan
> On Mon January 25 2010 3:32:17 pm Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > 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