Jason says 7 jars, Hani says 1, Pat says 2. I have two things to say. First, should webwork-2.0.jar include the code in xwork-1.0.jar, or should it depend on it? One way makes webwork-2.0.jar stand alone, the other keeps the webwork (not xwork) specific code abstracted from xwork code.
Second, maybe there should be one separate jar for the view code? Third, all of this should be configurable via build.properties, so one could have a single webwork-2.0.jar with everything included, or one could have more smaller jars as Jason suggested. I guess the real question is what should the default be? Maybe 2 files, like Pat said, and have the web tied view code in webwork.jar and the non web view code in xwork.jar? Ok, so 3 things to say. --Erik On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > I think that two jars is a good middle ground: > > xwork-1.0.jar > webwork-2.0.jar > > This is what we've been planning on all along. > > -Pat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:26 PM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] > > > > -1 from me, I like that it's one nice webwork.jar to plop in. Having to > > pay another 30k for velocity support (or whatever else I don't use > > currently) isn't such a big deal. It's too jakartaish to have your > > product be 50 jars. > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 01:15 PM, Rickard Öberg wrote: > > > > > Jason Carreira wrote: > > >> So the real question here is whether it makes sense to partition > > >> Webwork 2.0 into: > > >> Webwork-core > > >> Webwork-el > > >> Webwork-jsp > > >> Webwork-velocity > > >> Webwork-xslt > > >> Webwork-jasperreports > > >> Webwork-freemarket > > >> There may be later extensions to Xwork as well (JMSWork?, MailWork?). > > >> Personally, I think Webwork is small enough to stand as one module > > >> with all of the view types included. > > > > > > Yup. I have no issue with adding build targets that build the above > > > specific stuff, but separating it into separate CVS modules just > > > brings more headache than it's worth. > > > > > > /Rickard > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > > > http://www.vasoftware.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld > http://www.vasoftware.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
