|
From: Ryan J. M. <ry...@da...> - 2008-07-08 13:02:24
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I had a few more ideas for some other provider types and I realized that if we're not carful about, we could get fat really quickly. Here's a few provider ideas that Bill and I tossed around on this list: POI provider SVG Provider PGP/GPG Provider Given these 3 alone, we now have dependencies on the following projects: Jakarta POI Apache Batik Bouncy Castle or other PGP api It got me thinking: should we have an optional provider module(s)? Personally, I don't care. I think we've have the value-add of tons of kick-ass providers with no fuss, it wouldn't matter. But you know inevitably, there'd be a TSS article or collection of blog posts about how bloated RESTEasy is so bloated, yada yada yada. Does anyone else think this is a potential issue that we may want to address sooner than later? Ryan- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFIc2VPK/xjmUY6JwURAqFAAKCBdgm+Rcz7Yg2jXLViRoVACRjKBwCgkweF CRyFIK8Gpu9B2FwzNs+vE+w= =fWJM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |