Mailing-List: contact cxf-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <7b774c950703261248k9ad11a9r4d5942f78fbefa1b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:48:37 -0500
From: "Dan Diephouse" <dan@envoisolutions.com>
To: cxf-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: cxf packaging
In-Reply-To: <8C54805A-0BBE-472A-99F6-9B9C52DC6929@formicary.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_217679_9786198.1174938517901"
References: <a0a50dbb0703261206kc6aa876q206f689adf0e73a2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8C54805A-0BBE-472A-99F6-9B9C52DC6929@formicary.net>

------=_Part_217679_9786198.1174938517901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I too would like to see a bundle jar so users don't have to manage all the
cxf-* jars.

Currently we have a manifest jar which helps in setting up the classpath
(you only have to reference cxf-incubator.jar), but managing the cxf-* jars
is unwieldy and a PITA.

I would like to see us have a bundle jar which includes the most commonly
used modules. Then people could add the jbi, jca, etc jars if they wanted.

- Dan

On 3/26/07, Hani Suleiman <hani@formicary.net> wrote:
>
> I agree, the packaging is very awkward right now, and it's hard to
> find out why anyone would think that having 8+ jars to deploy what is
> essentially one framework is a good idea. Obviously this isn't about
> dependencies, but rather about the cxf-* jars. Modularising them
> makes sense, but for some things it's hard to understand what the
> thought process was when deciding that 'api' should be separate from
> 'core'. When would you deploy one without the other?
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2007, at 3:06 PM, tog wrote:
>
> > Hi folks
> >
> > Thanks a lot for all the work you have done so far. I am
> > enthousiastic user.
> > My goal is to link cxf with a dynamic languages namely Groovy.
> > Among the
> > difficulty I currently have is the selection of jar files would it be
> > possible to have different kind of packaging for example (this is
> > only a
> > proposal) a full jarfile (including dependencies) cxf-all.jar, a
> > minimum jar
> > file (not including the dependencies) for example based on aegis.
> > Of course
> > this does not prevent you to propose the single jars. Such jars
> > will ease
> > the integration and does not require much additional effort.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Guillaume
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > <a target="_blank"
> > href="http://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=guillaume.alleon%
> > 40gmail.com
> > "><img src="http://www.google.com/calendar/images/ext/
> > gc_button1_en.gif"
> > border=0></a>
>


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

------=_Part_217679_9786198.1174938517901--