#2 - The easier the better.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > See CXF-3741, it's an extra 800K on top of the 30MB that make up all jars. > > Gary > > On Aug 23, 2011, at 12:02, "Ron Wheeler" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >
