On Jul 6, 6:58 pm, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 Jul 2011, at 21:25, Anthony MULLER wrote: > > > Ok, so I choose this option: > > > 4) Build Guice core + extensions without any jarjar'ing or ProGuard'ing, > > only do that as a final distribution / packaging step > > Of course even if we decided to make Guava an external dependency we could > always provide a separate "nodeps" flavour of Guice that embeds Guava (like > CGLIB has a nodeps jar that embeds ASM)
This would have been my suggestion. Have 2 release jars, 1 that's solely guice code and another "nodeps" one with embedded deps (guava, cgilib, asm) that you''ve jarjar and proguard'ed. There's likely very little tooling work you'd need to modify to make the simple guice only jar and then use the nodeps one for all the internal build testing. That doesn't solve the extensions issue wrt Guava, but it would seem to appease the two main camps of opinions about how to deploy the jar. -- 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.
