I vote for dependency.
Each Stacks client version points to each file format version (in a
separate branch, of course).
Em 13-08-2012 07:35, Pete Muir escreveu:
Hey James,
My initial proposal was to create a "reference client", that would be really
simple. Rafael implemented it in ~550 LOC -
https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/master/Parser.java as I know that adding
dependencies can get really complex (e.g. consider someone using JBDS and Forge together,
and both using different versions of the client. Then this reference client can be copied
in, and used.
However, obviously we really want to do what makes most sense for the people who will use
the client:
* JBoss AS Maven plugin
* JBoss AS Forge plugin
* JBoss AS Eclipse plugin
* Arquillian (not discussed this one so far, but probably useful ;-)
So, I guess we should call a vote :-)
Who would prefer a dependency over a copy and paste? Please respond!
On 11 Aug 2012, at 01:00, James Perkins wrote:
> I've been working on getting stacks integrated with the maven plugin for the run
goal. While doing this I got to wondering if we should have a stacks client. I believe
Pete may have mentioned something about not wanting one, but it just seems we'll end
up with a bunch of duplicate code.
>
> I've created a quick prototype
https://github.com/jamezp/jdf-stack-client. It
would need some work and could probably be made a little more generic for integrating with
tooling, but it's just a PoC so far.
>
> Any thoughts or opinions about having a client available?
> --
> James R. Perkins
> JBoss by Red Hat
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdf-dev mailing list
> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
_______________________________________________
jdf-dev mailing list
jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev