On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:59 PM, cowwoc <[email protected]> wrote: > > I vote for making the common case easy and advanced case possible. Large > projects absolutely need the flexibility to choose which dependency versions > gets used. Simple projects prefer an all-in-use JAR file. I believe #4 will > make everyone happy.
I think I would make a case for a different "common case." To me, the common case is that Guice depends on Guava. That's an incredibly common relationship. I certainly don't want every library I use to start shipping all of its dependencies compiled into that library, obfuscated in some way. i just want to know the list of things that LibraryX depends on. Providing other options (a single jar built with special sauce so you don't need other jars) is fine, but it's special and extra, not a default. Guice in particular I think doesn't need this. Are there users who a) understand and want the complexities and utility of Guice, and b) are clueless about libraries with dependencies? I'd be surprised if there were anyone in that set. -- James Moore [email protected] http://jamesmoorecode.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en.
