cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bozhong Lin <b...@iona.com>
Subject Re: cxf packaging
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:18:04 GMT
We are not going to use cxf-bundle.jar name, I was just using that to 
illustrate the point.

Thanks,
Bo

Hani Suleiman wrote:
> Yes this would be good, though I have two minor comments:
>
> - Why -bundle extension? No other project uses this naming format. 
> What's so bad about just cxf.jar?
> - It's worth distinguishing this as a top level artifact rather than 
> another dependency, so it'd be better if it lived in the top level 
> directory rather than the lib dir.
>
> Either way, both very minor points, but since we're this close to 
> reaching agreement, figured it's worth suggesting!
>
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Bharath Ganesh wrote:
>
>> Yes that looks fine.
>>
>> On 3/29/07, Bozhong Lin <blin@iona.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I still have fresh memory that we had long discussion about 
>>> manifest.jar
>>> vs bundle.jar right before M1 release. I guess it must be time for
>>> another milestone release, thus the discussion of packaging again. :-)
>>>
>>> By observing all discussions happened on this topic, I would like to
>>> propose a packaging solution that satisfies both sides of world
>>> (manifest.jar and bundle.jar):
>>>
>>> -- "lib" directory containing
>>>      cxf-bundle.jar
>>>      other-third-party dependency jars, such as saaj.jar
>>>      a manifest jar
>>> -- "modules" directory containing
>>>      cxf-*.jar
>>>
>>> Would this work for everyone?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bo
>>>
>>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>> > On 3/27/07, Ted Neward <ted@tedneward.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Ted, maybe we haven't been clear in what we mean by single jar.
>>> >> >
>>> >> That's what I get for wandering into the middle of a conversation.
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> for not pointing out the obvious stupidity on the part of the guy 
>>> who
>>> >> didn't
>>> >> read through the entire thread. ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> > So given that, what's so bad about one cxf jar file? With 
>>> regards to
>>> >> > update, the same rules apply as with any other project. You 
>>> check the
>>> >> > release notes and decide if you want the new version or not. 
>>> This has
>>> >> > nothing to do with multiple jars, as they don't rev 
>>> independently of
>>> >> > each other (and if they did, then sure, they should be separate
>>> jars).
>>> >> >
>>> >> I guess I have to fall back on the aesthetic principle of 
>>> modularity. I
>>> >> agree with Dan's earlier statement that he's seen projects that 
>>> used a
>>> >> monolithic jar/.exe/artifact approach that allowed deep 
>>> "tangling" to
>>> >> take
>>> >> place over time--I've seen the same.
>>> >>
>>> >> That said, though, how hard would it be to keep them in separate 
>>> jars
>>> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> development cycle, to help enforce that kind of modularity, and just
>>> >> have
>>> >> an
>>> >> Ant task stitch them together into a single jar as part of the 
>>> release
>>> >> process? This doesn't seem like a major showstopper to me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I believe thats what we're proposing. We'd still want to use Maven 
>>> for
>>> > the
>>> > individual modules and to encourage modularity. We'd just package up
>>> > most of
>>> > the modules into one jar for users to use instead of having to manage
>>> > 8 or 9
>>> > cxf-*.jars
>>> >
>>> > - Dan
>>> >
>>>

Mime
View raw message