Sounds reasonable. -Stephen
On 8/20/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > -- Stephen Duncan Jr www.stephenduncanjr.com
