I'm not really sure about #1. My main use case is more for #2 where i'd want a standalone and highly cohesive bundle. In all cases, i agree we should rationalize what we currently have.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:57, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > While I was working on making the proxy code common between blueprint > and JNDI I noticed that many of our components have a *-bundle module, > to build an "uber" bundle, but we seem to have slightly different ways > of building these bundles. We seem to build uber bundles in one of > three ways: > > 1. The uber bundle contains all the other modules in the same top level module > 2. The uber bundle pulls in some subset of other top level models > (e.g. proxy and blueprint pull in the util bundle) > 3. The uber bundle pulls in all mandatory dependencies (e.g. blueprint > pulls in asm). > > I think it would make sense to have a common approach and as a result > I would like to propose the following: > > 1. The uber bundle. This bundle collects all the relevant child > modules of the module. An uber bundle does not collect other modules > like proxy or util. Such a bundle is not standalone. So a blueprint > uber bundle would collect blueprint-api, blueprint-core, blueprint-cm, > but not util or proxy. A proxy uber bundle collects proxy-api, > proxy-impl. > 2. The nodeps bundle. This is a truely standalone bundle that includes > everything it needs. It is standalone. So the blueprint nodeps bundle > would pull in the util, proxy modules and asm. > > I think this balances the desire for ease of deployment with the > desire for better sharing and modularity and minimum duplication of > code. > > What do people think? > Thanks > Alasdair > > -- > Alasdair Nottingham > [email protected] > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
