I would lean towards 2 but would be curious about what "a little bit"
mean in the phrase
"increases the size a little bit".
If this means 30-50k bytes in conjunction with a CXF that weighs in at multiple
megabytes it really does not matter and 2 is a clear winner.
I also tend to do a one-time installation of CXF and many other utilities into the server
shared library area and make them "provided" in the POM so that the simplicity
of the POM is a big plus for me and the extra bytes in the library is inconsequential.
Ron
On 23/08/2011 9:41 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Any other users like to weigh in on this. We pretty much split right now.
:-)
Dan
On Friday, August 19, 2011 2:01:02 PM Daniel Kulp 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?
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
