all in one jar sometime will cause troubles if the other lib has same
third part dependencies which is not use the all in on jar.
BTW, all in one jar is not convince for the people who don't want to
include the whole Spring framework for a single part JMX annotation class.
On 8/24/11 2:50 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Now, why can't I get all my Spring framework in one jar too? :)
Gary
On Aug 23, 2011, at 12:41, "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
--
Willem
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: willemjiang
