> Ted, maybe we haven't been clear in what we mean by single jar. > That's what I get for wandering into the middle of a conversation. Thanks for not pointing out the obvious stupidity on the part of the guy who didn't read through the entire thread. ;-)
> 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). > I guess I have to fall back on the aesthetic principle of modularity. I agree with Dan's earlier statement that he's seen projects that used a monolithic jar/.exe/artifact approach that allowed deep "tangling" to take place over time--I've seen the same. That said, though, how hard would it be to keep them in separate jars in the development cycle, to help enforce that kind of modularity, and just have an Ant task stitch them together into a single jar as part of the release process? This doesn't seem like a major showstopper to me. Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: cxf packaging > > > 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). > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 3/26/2007 > 2:31 PM > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 3/26/2007 2:31 PM
