I do not think this is a good idea. 1. You are assuming that everyone uses maven. 2. Based on many of the discussions that have been going on with this group, I believe that we have more important issues to consider. 3. We may confuse things for alot of people who may already be using 2.0. Telling users that they will have to fix their code because of a re-organization looks bad on our part IMHO.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niklas Gustavsson wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >> >> My feeling is that the cons outweigh the pros. Having multiple JARs >> commonly turns out to confuse users, especially with a setup where you >> can even get the very basic functionality working without choosing >> your combination of JARs. > > With Maven, this is not really a big issue, IMHO. Consider that it's a one > time burden... > > Now, if it degenerate to a dozens of jars, yes, I + your point. > > But even if we keep only one jar, I think we still have to create some new > packages, because we have a big bag of classes in common, which make it > quite difficult to find what are the relations between each classes. >> >> In addition, the current core JAR is about >> 500 kb, not huge. >> > > I didn't even mentioned the size in the pros ;) > > thanks ! > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
