On Monday, January 30, 2012 11:56:06 AM Christian Schneider wrote: > We could of course also have a spearate module for gzip. > The reason why I think about moving it to core is that it just contains > 3 classes and does not have additional dependencies. > > Basically I like the idea to separate modules on the architecture level. > On the runtime level I doubt though that any user would mind having > these classes > available every time. > > About a prefix for the gzip classes. I also thought about what could be > suitable. Of course gzip is kind of on the transport level but it is no > transport. So perhaps it is a kind of a transformation or encoding.
I really have some mixed opinions on this. In "API" we have some similar features similar to the gzip feature that really could be grouped into this, but we have that split-package issue. For example, the FastInfosetFeature kind of falls into the same basic idea and could likely be grouped into a separate "features" bundle, but because we stuck it in org.apache.cxf.feature, I have to leave it API. :-( (and the fact that the implementation of the feature lives in org.apache.cxf.interceptor, also in API) Dan > > Christian > > Am 30.01.2012 11:43, schrieb Sergey Beryozkin: > > Hi Christian > > > > On 30/01/12 10:34, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> We currently have a transports/common project that only contains the > >> gzip feature. > >> As this feature is even used from core I propose we move it there and > >> remove the whole transports/common module. > > > > As far as I recall the gzip feature was in transports/http originally > > and then there was a demand for GZIP be supported at the JMS level... > > > > I proposed to move it to transports/common as opposed to rt/core, it > > does not seem to belong to the core really, as it's a very transport > > specific feature > > > >> I would like to change the package name from > >> org.apache.cxf.transport.common.gzip to org.apache.cxf.gzip. To remain > >> compatible I would leave a copy of the classes > >> in the old package with @Deprecated annotation. > > > > I'd still propose to scope 'gzip', may be not with 'common' but with > > something else > > > > Cheers, Sergey > > > >> Christian -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
