They did deliver a complete jar in the 2.x series - but went to proper modules in 3.0.x. That fits an OSGi based world a lot better...
2011/8/23 Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > 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 > >> > -- -- David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen
