+1 I think I'd prefer that any extensions with minimal (no non-Abdera?) dependencies & for a open-standard (not vendor-specific) extension stay together as a core extensions jar. Or perhaps if there's a logical difference between things like bidi & thread vs. opensearch in terms of type of extension or scope?
-Stephen On 8/20/07, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/20/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The extensions module is growing. This is a good thing :-). Currently, > > a single extensions jar is built that contains all of the extensions. > > This makes distribution and deployment easy but requires that folks ship > > code that they are potentially not using. One possible solution is to > > generate multiple extension jars (one per extension). I have no real > > preference either way. What say y'all? > > Alternatively we could split the difference, have a core set of > extensions that go in a main jar, then split out others. Possible > criteria for splitting something out might be that it's new and > experimental, or that it depends on external code in a manner that's > irritating to users (i.e. if I have to pull in a gigantic third party > dependency just for having something around, I'd like it to be a > separate jar, although I suppose this is largely my C background > talking, and such things don't happen as much in Java land). > > -garrett > -- Stephen Duncan Jr www.stephenduncanjr.com
