Re: CXF User Poll: jetty-all or individual jars....

[Eric Johnson <em...@fusesource.com>]

+1 for #2.

It makes things easy for the majority and doesn't involve too much
pain for people who want to be more selective.


On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> 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?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>



-- 
Principle Technical Writer
FuseSource
Phone: (781) 280-4174
E-Mail: emjohnson@fusesource.com
Blog: http://documentingit.blogspot.com/
Twitter: finnmccumial