Mina is already a tiny package with a lot of power in it, I dont see the point to extract a vital part of it as a seperate jar. Distributing, using and managing a single jar is always better and easier. I know its not a big deal, but to me simpler is better. in short, I am totally agree with Jeroen Brattinga.
A seperate automatically generated ByteBuffer.jar is ok as long as it is also in mina. On 2/20/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without sounding like my 5 year old :), but why not? Could you give more reasons than just your opinion? Alex On 2/19/07, Mehmet D. AKIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/21/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The MINA ByteBuffer classes can be used without MINA for easier > manipulation > > of NIO ByteBuffers. For now, they belong to mina-core JAR, but we could > > split it even further to the two JARs; mina-bytebuffer, mina-core, and > > mina-transport-nio. By this sepration, we could remove some bad cyclic > > dependencies between transport implementation and the core API and allow > > users enjoy the access to the powerful byte buffer manipulation without > > using MINA. > > > > WDYT? > > -1 > > I dont think mina should be split even further. Maybe they could be > seperated for external use but Mina core should contain them too. >
