Just my 3 cents, based on experience with a similar scenario: going with multiple modules is far better for managing dependencies. Moreover, for me it helped to think about what dependencies are _really_ needed for a given module.
Now, for the problem of users being obliged to declare dependencies on multiple modules: what I'm doing is that I'm providing a pom for the most used scenarios. This way the end users are no longer obliged to peak & choose individual modules, they can declare a dependency on a pom (say tiles-servlet) and voila! On top of this picky users can still declare dependencies on individual modules. For me sounds like win-win situation. At least this is what works for me. Hope this helps, Pawel On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Greg Reddin<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Antonio > Petrelli<[email protected]> wrote: >> So my doubt is: is it better to have lots of modules, even small ones, >> with correctly-managed dependencies, or a small number of modules with >> some optional dependencies that need extra documentation to install >> (even with Maven)? > > By going the modules route do we essentially have a bunch of subprojects? > > I like the idea of having correctly-managed dependencies, rather than > the trouble of dealing with optional dependencies. > > Greg >
