+1 for #2. I wrote the Jira ;) Gary
On Aug 19, 2011, at 14:01, "Daniel Kulp" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just wanted to get users opinions on: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-3741 > > > Basically, right now, we ship just the 6 individual jetty jars that we need > for the various CXF features (and we likely should ship the jetty mgmt jar as > well to make 7). These 6 jars are defined as deps in the appropriate pom so > maven grabs them, etc... > > The proposal is to use and ship the jetty-all jar instead so all the Jetty > features are available to use. It reduces the jar count, but increases the > size a little bit. > > There are 3 options: > > 1) Leave things as is. > > 2) Only use jetty-all > > 3) Leave things as is in the pom so maven users are unaffected, but ship the > jetty-all in the distribution/lib dir. > > > I'm leaning toward #2 for CXF 2.5. Simple reason is that if someone wants > to > use the individual jars, they can exclude a single jar and add the others as > a > dep for their app. With #1, if they want jetty-all, they have to exclude a > bunch of deps to add jetty-all in. I'm personally not a fan of #3, but > thought I'd list it. :-) > > Thoughts? > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend - http://www.talend.com
