Re: cxf packaging

[Bozhong Lin]

We are not going to use cxf-bundle.jar name, I was just using that to 
illustrate the point.

Thanks,
Bo
Hani Suleiman wrote:
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
>