export any impl packages for OSGi.
Christian
2013/7/5 Andrei Shakirin
> +1 from me
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2013 10:55
> > To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> > Subjec
+1 from me
> -Original Message-
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2013 10:55
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] api+rt-core -> core
>
> Hi
>
> Sounds good
>
> Thanks, Sergey
> On 04
Hi
Sounds good
Thanks, Sergey
On 04/07/13 10:52, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
+1.
Colm.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
+1
- Dennis
On 07/04/2013 06:39 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
For 3.0, I'd like to combine both cxf-api and cxf-rt-core into a single
jar/bundle.
Generally speaking I agree on this. The api jar has always been actually
quite "fat" for an "api" thing.
One question that pops up in mind though is how we're going to deal with
api changes in micro releases in the future. My understanding is that so
far, any non backward compatible change to the
+1.
Colm.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> +1
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> On 07/04/2013 06:39 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> For 3.0, I'd like to combine both cxf-api and cxf-rt-core into a single
>> jar/bundle. I'd likely just call it cxf-core, but I'm open to other
>> suggest
+1
- Dennis
On 07/04/2013 06:39 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
For 3.0, I'd like to combine both cxf-api and cxf-rt-core into a single
jar/bundle. I'd likely just call it cxf-core, but I'm open to other
suggestions (cxf-kernel?).
We originally tried to have a separate jar for "api" to make javad
+1 for it.
And cxf-core is good for the name
－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
weibo: @Freeman小屋
On
For 3.0, I'd like to combine both cxf-api and cxf-rt-core into a single
jar/bundle. I'd likely just call it cxf-core, but I'm open to other
suggestions (cxf-kernel?).
We originally tried to have a separate jar for "api" to make javadoc generation
easier, but it pretty much doesn't work. Ma
