Sergey, What is the maven artifact name of the minimal bundle? And what have we got for Confluence advertising thereof?
--benson On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At least, in trunk/distribution, a similar idea is followed. > We have a standard all-inclusive CXF bundle, then we have a minimal one > which excludes the tools, rest, xmlbeans and it's only about soap really, > etc and we also have a jaxrs bundle... > > Cheers, Sergey > >> would it be possible to use different maven profiles to manage different >> dependancy sets. e.g. CXF without Rest support / CXF REST only / CXF >> without >> WS-Security etc... >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Benson Margulies >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Christian, >>> >>> This perhaps ought to move to dev, but ... >>> >>> What exactly do you have in mind when you say, 'clean out'? >>> >>> It might be one of several things. >>> >>> 1) Divorce CXF entirely from some of its dependencies. >>> 2) Document much more carefully what you actually have to have to >>> operate in various popular scenarios. >>> 3) tweak the Maven dependencies so that a vanilla user doing a vanilla >>> build downloads a less stuff? >>> >>> --benson >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Christian Schneider >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Hi Steve, >>> > >>> > I basically think you are right. CXF introduces a lot of dependencies >>> when >>> > you add it to your application. For a project manager at the company I >>> work >>> > this was almost a reason to throw CXF out and do >>> > the parsing by hand. While many maven projects tend to collect >>> dependencies >>> > CXF is an especially bad example here. >>> > >>> > I would vote for making cleaning out dependencies a high priority >>> > issue. >>> > What do other CXF developers think? >>> > >>> > BTW. If you have CXF in your project it does not make a lot of sense to >>> also >>> > use Axis. I think you should decide on time for your project which >>> > webservice stack to use and stick with it. >>> > >>> > Greetings >>> > >>> > Christian >>> > >>> > Steve Cohen schrieb: >>> >> >>> >> My "problem" is more philosophical than anything, and I'm not sure >>> >> it's >>> >> really a problem. But, consider that by adding a web service client, >>> >> a >>> >> small new piece of my application's functionality, the WAR file size >>> >> has >>> >> ballooned in size from 3MB to over 10MB. Additionally, as I look at >>> >> the >>> 33 >>> >> or so jars it was necessary to add to the war in order to get the >>> >> thing >>> to >>> >> run (and I manually hacked 14 out of the dependencies generated by >>> >> Maven >>> >> which I found NOT to be needed), I can't say I know what most of them >>> do. >>> >> Why, for example, was it necessary to include pieces of the Spring >>> >> framework, even though my application doesn't use that framework? >>> >> What, >>> for >>> >> Pete's sake, is Neethi, and why was it necessary to add it? Quite a >>> >> lot >>> of >>> >> stuff for the "simple" task of marshalling and unmarshalling data into >>> >> SOAP-XML packets and sending them across the wire. From their names, >>> >> it >>> >> looks as though some of them repeat functionality that is available in >>> other >>> >> jars - but who has time to investigate? I also have a little nagging >>> fear >>> >> that down the road a few weeks, when I have to add my NEXT web service >>> >> client to this app (and this one uses AXIS) I will end up adding >>> >> another >>> >> bunch of jars, some of which may conflict with the ones just added. >>> >> In other words I feel that I've lost control of my application. >>> >> >>> >> Prior to this, I understood my dependencies. I understand that >>> >> there's >>> a >>> >> tradeoff here. In return for letting go of control of my >>> >> dependencies, >>> I >>> >> have a potentially much simpler and more automated build process - and >>> >> I >>> >> know that's a good thing - especially when and if I convert the >>> project's >>> >> entire build process to Maven. And speaking of CXF in particular, I >>> like >>> >> that the client code I need to write is not particularly ugly, as it >>> >> is >>> with >>> >> some other SOAP platforms (AXIS - grr grr). But I continue to wonder >>> >> whether it isn't a problem that Maven encourages these chains of >>> >> dependencies that grow geometrically without appropriate consideration >>> to >>> >> developer understanding being given. For the sake of developer >>> >> understanding, would it perhaps be a good thing if pom.xml dependency >>> >> elements had a required <comment> element that the composer of a POM >>> would >>> >> have to think about before issuing a POM to the world? Or maybe a >>> >> newer >>> >> version of CXF will pare the dependencies down to what is truly needed >>> to >>> >> run client-side and server-side apps. >>> >> >>> >> <end of rant> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Christian Schneider >>> > --- >>> > http://www.liquid-reality.de >>> > >>> > >>> >> > > >
