cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: cxf packaging
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:30:53 GMT
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

-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message