Perhaps all extensions that have an associated Internet-Draft or RFC can be bundled into a single core extension module; the rest can go into individual jars (e.g. a geo jar, an opensearch jar, etc)
- James Stephen Duncan wrote: > +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 >> > > >
