I really want a number 1. I pull all of the aries modules into my product and currently I get multiple copies of util, and I have multiple versions of ASM.
I know I could go with the individual bundles too, but this has it's own negatives, such as having a huge number of extra bundles. I understand the need for #2, but I strongly believe we should have a #1 and certainly when we first discussed uber bundles I was expecting more of a #1 than a #2. Alasdair On 6 December 2010 11:00, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
