Yes this would be good, though I have two minor comments:
- Why -bundle extension? No other project uses this naming format.
What's so bad about just cxf.jar?
- It's worth distinguishing this as a top level artifact rather than
another dependency, so it'd be better if it lived in the top level
directory rather than the lib dir.
Either way, both very minor points, but since we're this close to
reaching agreement, figured it's worth suggesting!
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Bharath Ganesh wrote:
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
>
