Just to bring up a complication that Dan and I kind of thought about yesterday:
1) What will happen with all the files that are in "multiple modules". I'm thinking about the files like: META-INF/cxf/cxf-property-editors.xml META-INF/tools-plugin.xml META-INF/spring.handlers etc.... Those will all need to be merged together. That's not going to be fun and will definitely be a maintenence issue if it's not something that can be automated. 2) The NOTICE file for the bundle will also need to be a merge of the automated NOTICE as well as all the appended information. Dan On Thursday 29 March 2007 06:40, Bozhong Lin 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 -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
