On 7 Jul 2011, at 15:07, jhulford wrote: > 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.
FYI, for those interested... I'm experimenting with making Guava an external dependency in the sisu-guice repo (https://github.com/sonatype/sisu-guice) > -- > 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. > -- 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.
