I am still convinced that approaching modularization having OSGi in mind as good example of modularization is the way to go. And we can still support big packages for users that prefer them.
The (almost) one class module is a special case for the converters stuff. I will experiment that approach on sandbox so we can evaluate. TIA, all the best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Daniel Manzke <[email protected]> wrote: > Splitting it in to much modules, does it hard to find them. > > I like to split it into a converter project, but would stop there. Like > suggested we can later split if we have the need for it. > it is like guava, commons-codec, ... a library with more than one class. ;) > > > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> > >> > Usually in such case, I like having a org.onami.converter.all for guys >> like >> > me who are lazy (I prefer declaring one module than many) and who dont' >> care >> > handling big jars :) >> >> this is a very nice suggestion - and not hard to achieve. >> >> I am "sandboxing" tonight in order to prepare a more concrete proposal. >> >> thanks a lot for the priceless feedbacks! >> -Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> > > > > -- > Viele Grüße/Best Regards > > Daniel Manzke
