Xiao-Feng Li wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Regis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> IMHO, it isn't negative to modularity of Harmony itself at developing time, >> but it is at deployment or runtime. For example, someone want to replace >> concurrent module with another implementation, he just need to replace the >> concurrent.jar, that's enough. But if we pack them into one big jar, he need >> to unpack, replace and pack again. That also work, but isn't convenient and >> straightforward. > > We can offer a build option to provide separate JARs if that's > desirable. Does anyone really need this feature?
It is a desirable feature for people who consume only parts of Harmony, or who want to subset the runtime -- though I agree that there are multiple ways to solve that problem. As written elsewhere though, let's check we are solving the right problem. Regards, Tim
