On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Ted Neward wrote:
1) CXF developers - basically, the folks on cxf-dev that are in the
core
writing stuff.
Who need to keep their heads wrapped around what they're doing.
2) Basic "end user" type folks. Most of these are happy with the
JAX-WS
specification or the other "basic" info we have up on the Wiki.
(Well,
the stuff that Dan is working on getting on the wiki. More work is
needed on this front.)
Yes, and being in that category, I don't want to add 8 cxf jars. It's
an irritating barrier to adoption. Does a single user on this list
think this is a good idea? Please speak up if you *want* dozens of
jars.
Do I want "dozens" of jars? Not really. But let's not over-
exaggerate the
situation here--how painful is it, really, to add eight entries to
an Ant
script? You prefer "bloated monolithic" jars to "dozens of jars",
Hani?
(Note the deliberate use of the perjorative here to try and point
out that
it's easy to skew a question to generate the answer the questioner
wants.)
Ted, maybe we haven't been clear in what we mean by single jar. The
proposed jar does not contain ANY dependencies, nothing external. You
still need to have jaxb, stax, and whatever other dependencies cxf
has. The issue is just that cxf specific artifacts (or a useful
subset) should go into a single jar. They're all under the same
license, developed by the same people, in the same source repo, with
the same release schedule. You'd never mix and match versions or want
to swap one out for another.
So given that, what's so bad about one cxf jar file? With regards to
update, the same rules apply as with any other project. You check the
release notes and decide if you want the new version or not. This has
nothing to do with multiple jars, as they don't rev independently of
each other (and if they did, then sure, they should be separate jars).
