On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:13 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I think we've consensus now that instead of having three maven modules > >> (model/model-xml/model-runtime) its ok to have the model and model-xml > in a > >> single module > > > > It seems that statement may not be true :( > > > > I think it would be good to be consistent on this across all the Tuscany > > modules, right now its an arbitrary mix. > > > > I'd prefer not keeping the *-xml ones and think thats what we decided > back > > ages ago (Sebastien's idea i recall though i can't find the emails right > > now). Are there any good reasons for not being consistent? or for keeping > > any of the *-xml modules? > > > > You can't use Tuscany without stax. There are no external users I know of > > that attempt to use the model modules without the -xml modules, we've > always > > had some of the xml code in the one module in some of the extensions so > if > > there are any users doing this then they're handling themselves ok > anyway, > > and thats probable quite easy as you just need to exclude stax (though > this > > seems like an obscure usecase to me), so whats the problem? > > > > Are we talking only about extensions (bindings and implementations) ? > I'm suggesting everything. > > For other modules, I'd suggest we check case by case, as I have the > same concerns expressed by Raymond on this thread. > > But what are those concerns? No one has ever given any technical reasons for keeping them separate that makes sense if we're not doing it consistently. ...ant
