Re: [Resteasy-developers] Providers and Future Bloat

[Martin A. <sp...@ma...>]

It's nice to have the extras. But I'd like to see them in a separate  
jar. The main jar should imo just be a bare bones JAX-RS implementation.

M

On 8 Jul 2008, at 15:02, Ryan J. McDonough wrote:

> -----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-----
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
> and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
> _______________________________________________
> Resteasy-developers mailing list
> Res...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/resteasy-developers