Ersin, Thanks for suggesting this. This is exactly what I was thinking could help both camps. Many projects have a xxx-foo.jar, xxx-bar.jar and an xxx-all.jar which contains all packages. This also helps for OSGi'fication.
Alex On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I would suggest having both a monolithic and a set of modular packages just > as Spring Framework distribution has. Of course from the developers point > of > view there should be more packages and projects to make things more > decoupled and understandable. They can all be compiled into separate jars > and also can be assembled into one big jar. > > Greetings, > > Ersin Er > http://www.ersin-er.name > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:31, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 'Multiple' starts at 2 ;) > > > > I would suggest we start by reorganizing the packages first, and then > > we may see if it really makes sense to split mina-core in 2 (or 3 ;) > > > > Thanks ! > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree with Maarten and Julien, multiple packages may make sense but I > > > don't see any value to multiple jars at this point. > > > > > > We had talked about separating IoBuffer and a few other other base > > classes > > > that might have utility outside of MINA into their own jar at one > point. > > I > > > still like this idea. > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > Julien Vermillard wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> look like I agree with Maarten, > > >> > > >> the common package is bloated, we need to split in some packages. > > >> > > >> For multiple jar, I'm using maven it's not too much burden for me, but > > >> it's hard to see the advantage for that move. > > >> > > >> Julien > > >> > > >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:07:28 +0200 > > >> "Maarten Bosteels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> I fail to see strong advantages of having multiple jars. > > >>> Having more packages seems like a good idea though. > > >>> > > >>> Maarten. > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Niklas Gustavsson > > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny > > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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... > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> My worry is not around how to perform the actual work setting things > > >>>> up, but rather how much a potential consumer would have to > > >>>> understand about MINA before she can get going. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I certainly agree. > > >>>> > > >>>> /niklas > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Cordialement, > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > www.iktek.com > > >
