On Jan 29, 2008 9:11 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you could issue the external dependencies in a separate > > > archive; that would need the appropriate N &L of course, but would not > > > change very often. > > > > > > > Sounds attractive. So we would have > > > > tuscany-binaries > > tuscany-dependencies > > tuscany-src > > > > I think this would be an advantage if we go ahead and split up our > > distributions into smaller units as suggested in [1]. At the moment the > > distribution contains everything and the chances that a dependency > version > > will change is high. With smaller, more focused distribution zips, we > may > > be > > able to maintain a set of dependency versions as the Tuscany function > > matures. > > > > Simon > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg27305.html > > > > > There would still be a download available that includes both Tuscany and > the > dependency jars though right? This would just add additional downloads > separating Tuscany and dependencies? > > ...ant > so you mean...
tuscany-binaries tuscany-binaries-with-dependencies tuscany-src Sebastien pointed us toward Spring as another example which, for the framework, has the slightly different pattern ?-binaries ?-binaries+dependencies-src-samples Whichever turns out to be the favoured style in the project I'd like to take a more static approach to dealing with and packaging binary dependencies and their associated licenses. Simon
