Hi Robert!
(without wanting to ignite naming wars) modes sounds like a very cool idea but it may be confusing for users if they are all called axis2.jar.
+1
for example, it might be worth considering whether building with 'axis.jarstyle=compact' should create 'axis2-compact.jar'.
Also +1. I think we should decide on the standard set of stuff that is the default build, and make that "axis2.jar", then make the other styles named appropriately "axis2-compact.jar", "axis2-jaxws.jar", etc
it might also be worth considering using uberjar and jarjar to create an absolutely standard release jar contain all dependencies. (axis2-standard.jar, say.)
If I understand your meaning correctly, I'd think "complete" would be better than "standard" for that, but we can work out all the naming issues as we move forward. For now we should decide if indeed we want something like jar styles, and get the framework implemented in the maven project files.
--Glen
