Re: [orbit-dev] Declaring Build: S20161205183421

[David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, they are at odds. IMHO (and it is just one opinion) we should "mimic"
what the third-party provides. Not what some "fourth-party" provides. :)

Or, at least ask them, on their mailing list if they contributed them 
split-up
to maven central, or if they have any preference.

And, since the third party ships them all-together in one OSGi bundle, 
and since
we have done that previously, that would seem to tip the balance in 
favor of all-in-one?

My guess (and just a guess, I've not looked) is there is not much 
difference in "size" of the bundles.
But I realize some would argue that more modular is always better.

Thanks for the history and explanations. I will leave up to you now and 
comment no more (on this case :)




On 12/08/2016 03:11 PM, Roland Grunberg wrote:
> Yes, I see that the sources/binaries are shipped together on that page.
> However, on maven central everything is split up. There's httpclient-cache,
> httpclient-fluent, etc. These 2 approaches are at odds but I'd argue more
> people are probably consuming through maven so diverging from that packaging
> might be confusing.
>
> As CQs, they were also filed separately (CQ 11712, 11713) likely because
> they were based off of the maven built artifacts. Since they're already
> approved it shouldn't be too much work to get them into orbit-recipes.
>
>
> Cheers,