Re: [Resteasy-developers] Optional Libraries/distribution structure WAS Re: Providers and Future Bloat

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

On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:15, Bill Burke wrote:

> Well, there's two different types of users.  One set just wants it  
> as easy as possible to run things, the other wants a fine tuned  
> distribution.  IMO, the majority of users just want things to run.  
> That's why the zip just has a war file within it with everything so  
> that they can just plop the WAR file into Tomcat or their  
> application server. Since Resteasy is young, you want as few steps  
> as possible to get things to run.  So, I'd like to keep a WAR that  
> has everything within it (except probably the client-framework  
> pieces and tjws/grizzly).
>
> For the 2nd type of user, I think we can solve that with  
> documentation.  Specify which jars are optional which aren't.
>
> So, maybe the distribution should look like this?
>
> /lib/
>    /client/
>           httpclient.jar
>           resteasy-jaxrs-client.jar
>    /server/
>           resteasy-jaxrs.jar
>           tjws.jar
>           servlet-api.jar
>           (anything required by core server engine)
>    /providers/
>              resteasy-providers.jar
>              jettison.jar
>              (...any libraries optional providers pull in)
>
> Another thought here is to just distribute a maven repository of  
> resteasy and its dependencies.
>
>
> /resteasy-jaxrs.war/
>                   WEB-INF/lib/
>                              ...all from lib/server
>                              ...all from lib/providers
>
> Here we'd have duplicate libraries in distribution, but again, I  
> want it very easy to start up.
>
>
> /docs/
>     javadocs/
>     docbook/
>             html/
>             html_single/
>             pdf/
>
>
> Don't know if you've seen my previous email, but I wrote a tool to  
> scrape JBoss Wiki to generate docbook.
>
> /examples/
>         example1/
>                  build.xml (ant using /lib directories)
>                  pom.xml (using repository.jboss.org)

I agree this looks like a sensible layout for the full fledged out-of- 
the-box distribution. It doesn't matter we're repeating jars - this is  
for people that want something running quickly.

> We should have both ant and maven support.  Many (most?) developers  
> still use ant.


Most use ant?! I certainly hope not :)

I think there's two things two different questions in here. One is  
what we use to build/distribute RESTEasy. This hardly matters for  
anyone but us, and maven is an excellent choice. The other is how  
people are using the library in their own projects. It seems we're  
arriving in two distributions here, one .zip which is like a kitchen  
sink, it just has everything to run quickly, the other is the  
standalone jars. If we get maven configured correctly this provides a  
way of downloading the jar as well as linking to the pom.xml to get  
dependencies right. I don't see how ant comes into the picture?

M