I was about to say the same thing :) I think this is the right way to go, although I still think we should give several common providers in one JAR file as long as additional deps doesn't increase what maven needs to start with (so xpp3, xstream, and XML-over-HTTP-from-a-repository are probably ok, LDAP and OJB might be in a separate JAR).
- Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 9:05 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: RE: maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml > > > On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 16:50, Brett Porter wrote: > > Do we really need N libraries each containing two classes? > > > > I would think there should be one interface to marshal/unmarshal a > > model from a source, and then N providers. maven-model-tools can > > provide the main ones we want to distribute, but others could be > > plugged in by third parties if they wanted to. > > > > Actually just looking at it here, the interfaces could > actually go into maven-model as that won't introduce any deps > and every provider would need it as a dep anyway. Alex is > trying one with ldap, and he said he might try one with a db, > but if he doesn't I can try one quick with OJB. > > I also just made some modifications to xstream over the > weekend so that it can use xpp3 so I might try to make a > model reader/writing using xstream would would greatly simply > the xml variant. > > -- > jvz. > > Jason van Zyl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://maven.apache.org > > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the > more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to > other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder ... > > -- Thoreau > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
