+1 for it. And cxf-core is good for the name －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ Twitter: freemanfang Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 weibo: @Freeman小屋 On 2013-7-4, at 上午2:39, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > For 3.0, I'd like to combine both cxf-api and cxf-rt-core into a single > jar/bundle. I'd likely just call it cxf-core, but I'm open to other > suggestions (cxf-kernel?). > > We originally tried to have a separate jar for "api" to make javadoc > generation easier, but it pretty much doesn't work. Many of the classes > (like the Service Factories and client factories and JAX-RS client things and > much much more) that you really would need are not part of api and thus don't > appear in the "api" javadoc anyway. Thus, that reason is pointless and not > working. > > API is also WAY WAY more than just "API" now. There are interceptors, data > binding things, all kinds of concrete utility things, etc… API is about 1MB > whereas "core" is about 270K. Kind of shows where the real "core" stuff is. > > As it is, right now, you cannot really have api without rt-core anyway. By > combining them, we can get rid of some of the dynamic import things and such > in OSGi (to find the Bus factory). One less jar to deal with as well. The > jaxrs basic sample would be down to cxf-core, cxf-transports-http, > cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs, and the related 3rd party deps. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
