Regarding creating a submodule for each third party library, I agree. Something like: wink -wink-providers --wink-jettison --wink-...
is what I had in mind. I'll try to see how feasible this is and what the end user experience should be like. I also don't think we should be the distributor of every single library that is possibly supported. On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Michael Elman<[email protected]> wrote: > In general I agree that it would be nice idea to separate optional providers > from the common module. > IMO, we should create a submodule for each third party library, so the user > will be able to bring only the relevant sub modules with their third > parties. The third parties of different libraries very often have conflicts. > This rise additional question regarding the distribution: should these > modules be included in wink-<version>.jar and all the third-parties in the > lib? I guess not. > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Bryant Luk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if we could add a new module/submodules for optional >> providers (like wink-providers). I think there are a number of >> potential libraries that exist today that do not provide their own >> JAX-RS MessageBodyReader/MessageBodyWriter. It would speed up the >> users' development time and would give them options for different >> media types. This should also be easy code for users to contribute >> back if they wish. >> >> -- >> >> - Bryant Luk >> > -- - Bryant Luk
