[security-dev] [PicketLink] - Module Organization
Darran Lofthouse
darran.lofthouse at jboss.com
Thu Apr 4 09:33:19 EDT 2013
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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> - DML
>> _______________________________________________
>> security-dev mailing list
>> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list