Since there were not any objections or anything, I'll go ahead and start working on some of this.
Thanks! Dan On Mon February 1 2010 3:41:53 pm Daniel Kulp wrote: > It looks like we have a semi-concensus at least for the first two parts. > Basically, create a subproject for the xjc related stuff to kind of be a > more "open" jaxb-commons type thing. (and the build-utils subproject to > support both this and the normal cxf stuff and potentially dosgi as well). > > If there are no objections, I'll start working on that on Wednesday. Thus, > speak up if you object. (or, speak up if you think we need a formal vote > on this. I'm happy with lazy concensus, but if someone wants a formal > vote, I'd be happy to do that as well). > > We can tackle #3 separately. > > Dan > > On Mon January 25 2010 3:32:17 pm Daniel Kulp wrote: > > I'd like everyone's thoughts on some ideas I have to do some minor > > restructuring for 2.3. I'm just throwing this out there as some ideas. > > We don't need to do any of this if people disagree or would find it > > annoying or similar. I just want peoples thoughts.... > > > > 1) We have a bunch of xjc plugins in common/xjc that really never change. > > There really isn't a reason to have a 2.3 version and a 2.2.6 version and > > such. They are pretty much completely shareable. Thus, I'm thinking > > of creating an "xjc-plugins" sub-project to house these. We could just > > release them once and re-use them until new plugins are needed/created. > > common/xsd (our xjc wrapper maven plugin) would probably go there as > > well. > > > > 2) Likewise, buildtools and maven-plugins/xml2fastinfoset-* are really > > RARELY changed. I'd like to have a "build-tools" subproject for these > > type things. This is partially to support (1) above so the checkstyle > > rules and such are more shareable, but it also would remove a few > > modules from the build. > > > > 3) Most radical idea: I'd like to merge what's left in common/* after > > (1) into api. Possibly also merge parts or all of rt/core into API. > > If we do that, possibly just rename api to "cxf-kernel" or make it > > cxf-core or similar. common-utilities, api, and core are really not > > useable without each other at all. You cannot do much without all three > > so merging them together seems to make some sense. POSSIBLY > > tools-common as well. I need to look into that one a bit more. We > > COULD potentially move some stuff OUT of api/rt-core that is more ws > > specific (like the wsdl manager stuff) and into a ws-core or something > > that wouldn't be needed for JAX-RS. Not sure how much of an impact that > > would have. > > > > Doing 3 MAY allow better OSGi support as we really would have a "kernel" > > with pretty much EVERYTHING else being plugins into our kernel. > > > > There will be a slight build speedup as less modules are built and less > > calls to checkstyle and such, but nothing major as a majority is in the > > systests. Now that we've gone with Surefire 2.5, I MAY experiment with > > the parallel setting on a couple of the module, probably cannot on the > > systests though. > > > > Now, the MAIN drawback from all this would be merging fixes to 2.2.x is > > going to be much harder in those modules. I think that would mostly > > affect me though. > > > > Anyway, I'd like to know what people think about all this. > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
