Done.
-dain
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
+1 spring-module approach, marking all the spring jars as provided.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar
(2M) to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
----
531K
spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will
also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use
the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the
xbean-spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and
then the importing project will need to explicitly import spring
in which ever form they like.
I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade
to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
-dain
BTW, I did test this actually works :)
