Yes that looks fine.
On 3/29/07, Bozhong Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still have fresh memory that we had long discussion about manifest.jar
vs bundle.jar right before M1 release. I guess it must be time for
another milestone release, thus the discussion of packaging again. :-)
By observing all discussions happened on this topic, I would like to
propose a packaging solution that satisfies both sides of world
(manifest.jar and bundle.jar):
-- "lib" directory containing
cxf-bundle.jar
other-third-party dependency jars, such as saaj.jar
a manifest jar
-- "modules" directory containing
cxf-*.jar
Would this work for everyone?
Cheers,
Bo
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Ted Neward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
>
> I believe thats what we're proposing. We'd still want to use Maven for
> the
> individual modules and to encourage modularity. We'd just package up
> most of
> the modules into one jar for users to use instead of having to manage
> 8 or 9
> cxf-*.jars
>
> - Dan
>
