Also we have a requirement for a minimal dependency on picketlink idm so
we do not want to be bringing in anything additional where that is all
we require.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 03/04/13 18:19, Anil Saldhana wrote:
That should be the goal. One jar -> one module.
On Apr 3, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Always, always, always have one module per JAR. If this doesn't make
> sense for a project (e.g. split package problems) then this indicates
> that the project's JAR boundaries were not properly considered.
>
> On 04/03/2013 11:17 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I was thinking about the best way to organize the PicketLink libraries with
the AS module structure.
>>
>> Now that PicketLink have some sub-projects, I was wondering if we should have
a single module for all libraries (core, idm, federation, oauth, etc):
>>
>> org/picketlink/main
>> - core.jar
>> - idm.jar
>> - federation.jar
>> - etc.
>>
>> Or if is better to have different modules for each project:
>>
>> org/picketlink/core/main
>> - core.jar
>>
>> org/picketlink/idm/main
>> - idm.jar
>>
>> org/picketlink/federation/main
>> - federation.jar
>>
>> Any thoughts ?
>>
>> Regards.
>> Pedro Igor
>> _______________________________________________
>> security-dev mailing list
>> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>
>
> --
> - DML
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
_______________________________________________
security-dev mailing list
security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev