cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Grr. Maven.
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:33:47 GMT
Sergey,

What is the maven artifact name of the minimal bundle? And what have
we got for Confluence advertising thereof?

--benson


On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Sergey Beryozkin
<sergey.beryozkin@progress.com> wrote:
> At least, in trunk/distribution, a similar idea is followed.
> We have a standard all-inclusive CXF bundle, then we have a minimal one
> which excludes the tools, rest, xmlbeans and it's only about soap really,
> etc and we also have a jaxrs bundle...
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>> would it be possible to use different maven profiles to manage different
>> dependancy sets. e.g. CXF without Rest support / CXF REST only / CXF
>> without
>> WS-Security etc...
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Benson Margulies
>> <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Christian,
>>>
>>> This perhaps ought to move to dev, but ...
>>>
>>> What exactly do you have in mind when you say, 'clean out'?
>>>
>>> It might be one of several things.
>>>
>>> 1) Divorce CXF entirely from some of its dependencies.
>>> 2) Document much more carefully what you actually have to have to
>>> operate in various popular scenarios.
>>> 3) tweak the Maven dependencies so that a vanilla user doing a vanilla
>>> build downloads a less stuff?
>>>
>>> --benson
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Christian Schneider
>>> <chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>> > Hi Steve,
>>> >
>>> > I basically think you are right. CXF introduces a lot of dependencies
>>> when
>>> > you add it to your application. For a project manager at the company I
>>> work
>>> > this was almost a reason to throw CXF out and do
>>> > the parsing by hand. While many maven projects tend to collect
>>> dependencies
>>> > CXF is an especially bad example here.
>>> >
>>> > I would vote for making cleaning out dependencies a high priority
>>> > issue.
>>> > What do other CXF developers think?
>>> >
>>> > BTW. If you have CXF in your project it does not make a lot of sense to
>>> also
>>> > use Axis. I think you should decide on time for your project which
>>> > webservice stack to use and stick with it.
>>> >
>>> > Greetings
>>> >
>>> > Christian
>>> >
>>> > Steve Cohen schrieb:
>>> >>
>>> >> My "problem" is more philosophical than anything, and I'm not sure
>>> >> it's
>>> >> really a problem.  But, consider that by adding a web service client,
>>> >> a
>>> >> small new piece of my application's functionality, the WAR file size
>>> >> has
>>> >> ballooned in size from 3MB to over 10MB.  Additionally, as I look at
>>> >> the
>>> 33
>>> >> or so jars it was necessary to add to the war in order to get the
>>> >> thing
>>> to
>>> >> run (and I manually hacked 14 out of the dependencies generated by
>>> >> Maven
>>> >> which I found NOT to be needed), I can't say I know what most of them
>>> do.
>>> >>  Why, for example, was it necessary to include pieces of the Spring
>>> >> framework, even though my application doesn't use that framework?
>>> >>  What,
>>> for
>>> >> Pete's sake, is Neethi, and why was it necessary to add it?  Quite a
>>> >> lot
>>> of
>>> >> stuff for the "simple" task of marshalling and unmarshalling data into
>>> >> SOAP-XML packets and sending them across the wire.  From their names,
>>> >> it
>>> >> looks as though some of them repeat functionality that is available
in
>>> other
>>> >> jars - but who has time to investigate?  I also have a little nagging
>>> fear
>>> >> that down the road a few weeks, when I have to add my NEXT web service
>>> >> client to this app (and this one uses AXIS) I will end up adding
>>> >> another
>>> >> bunch of jars, some of which may conflict with the ones just added.
>>> >> In other words I feel that I've lost control of my application.
>>> >>
>>> >> Prior to this, I understood my dependencies.  I understand that
>>> >> there's
>>> a
>>> >> tradeoff here.  In return for letting go of control of my
>>> >> dependencies,
>>> I
>>> >> have a potentially much simpler and more automated build process - and
>>> >> I
>>> >> know that's  a good thing - especially when and if I convert the
>>> project's
>>> >> entire build process to Maven.  And speaking of CXF in particular, I
>>> like
>>> >> that the client code I need to write is not particularly ugly, as it
>>> >> is
>>> with
>>> >> some other SOAP platforms (AXIS - grr grr).  But I continue to wonder
>>> >> whether it isn't a problem that Maven encourages these chains of
>>> >> dependencies that grow geometrically without appropriate consideration
>>> to
>>> >> developer understanding being given.  For the sake of developer
>>> >> understanding, would it perhaps be a good thing if pom.xml dependency
>>> >> elements had a required <comment> element that the composer of
a POM
>>> would
>>> >> have to think about before issuing a POM to the world?  Or maybe a
>>> >> newer
>>> >> version of CXF will pare the dependencies down to what is truly needed
>>> to
>>> >> run client-side and server-side apps.
>>> >>
>>> >> <end of rant>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Christian Schneider
>>> > ---
>>> > http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message