I was *convinced* those two numbers were the same. Dueling 803's! I agree, the de-bundled one smells a lot better. LGTM'd it.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rodrigo Chandia <[email protected]>wrote: > El 11 de febrero de 2011 14:48, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> escribió: > > If Dave has already LGTM'd one of the approaches as maven friendly, is >> there any reason not to go with that? What are the trade offs? > > > No LGTM from David Chandler yet. > > But aside from that, from what David and I have discussed, both approaches > are Maven friendly. The only remaining points of discussion seem to be > maintainability and possible (yet unknown) conflicts with external versions > of the validation API jars. Bundling the classes as done here forces every > GWT user to compile with our version of javax.validation (so far the only > one AFICT, and the user can still use any implementation on the server). > > The other Issue (1342803) touches more places in our ant build, but keep > the validation jars separate and thus allow our users to easily choose to > use other validation APIs (as long as the API is backwards compatible with > validation-api-1.0.0.GA). > > I personally believe in modularity and de-bundling, so I lean toward the > later option (Issue 1342803). In any case I'd be happy with either an LGTM > here (issue1323803) from David or an unopposed LGTM in issue1342803. > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
