As requested, here are my views on dividing [collections] into smaller jars.
The concept comes from having a single jar file of 550K which other open
source projects have chosen to avoid. This is perhaps understandable
when often their own code may amount to only 150K. The question is
whether
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As requested, here are my views on dividing
> [collections] into smaller jars.
>
Thanks. :)
> The concept comes from having a single jar file of
> 550K which other open
> source projects have chosen to avoid. This is
> perhaps understandabl
In the end, I think that no change, and a single jar file, may still
be the best option.
Whoever is concerned about jar size could reduce the size at build time.
I am not so sure it's worth the hassle to split collections like
that *shrug*
cheers
--
Torsten
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The generics branch should remove the deprecated
> > code, and that will
> > allow new growth to occur there. In fact, the
> > generics branch could go
> > furthe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the end, I think that no change, and a single jar file, may still
> > be the best option.
>
> Whoever is concerned about jar size could reduce the size at build time.
> I am not so sure it's worth the hassle to spli
--- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > The generics branch should remove the
> deprecated
> > > code, and that will
> > > allow new growth to
--- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Matt Benson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > The generics branch should remove the
>
