On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ok, then let's provide the extra option. Thanks, xiaofeng > As written elsewhere though, let's check we are solving the right problem. > > Regards, > Tim > > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
