On May 30, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Adam Hardy wrote:
Don Brown on 29/05/08 08:08, wrote:
xbean-finder is already split into a common library, just it is part
of the xbean project rather than commons. From a technical level,
there is no difference.
The reason we want to copy the code over has less to do with the
project's stability but the desire to have fewer dependencies.
Don
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
How about talking to the author about splitting it into a commons
library?
This would give the usual benefits of propogating bug fixes and
avoid
duplicate work on divergent code bases.
Al.
Musachy Barroso wrote:
It is a standalone library, used heavily by the OpenEJB and
Geronimo
guys.
oops.
Personally, I favor copying the code over and jarjar'ing the asm
dependency.
Two quick questions:
"jarjar'ing" the dependency? What does that mean? I hope I'm not the
only one who isn't hip to the lingo! I guess if I knew the context
better I could work it out.
Secondly, I was wondering about the advantages of having fewer
dependencies, especially in this maven era. If something's really
great, it's fine to depend on it, surely?
The term comes from a tool that essentially read in the byte code and
repackaged it. For example changing the java package from
org.objectweb.asm to org.apache.fooproject.asm. There are other tools
that can do it now, like the maven-shade-plugin, but it was the first
that I'm aware of.
The ASM guys themselves recommend repackaging their code due to the
number of people using different versions of ASM and that some of
those versions of incompatible. Hibernate is a good example of this
as they use a really old version of ASM. As this particular library
is only 40K or so you can solve a lot of potential headaches for users
by getting it out of their way.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
