I think producing two formal JARs would make sense. I don't know if
it would break the JCP rules in any sense. Also, don't know if there
are any precedence for that.
I'm watching the issue and will track it there.
On 12/12/12 1:49 PM, Danny Coward
On 12/12/12 1:41 PM, Arun Gupta
Do you expect two separate JARs for client and server or rich
clients to extract the required classes out of a single JAR ?
IMHO the names are intuitive and its only 5 classes. I'd
rather keep a flat structure with everything in
OK. Well we are balancing the need not to require server API
classes for rich clients, which really pulls us in the
direction of needing a separate package to make the separation
between the models clean.
I should think it would be clearest if we produced two separate
JARs - one for rich clients with only the javax.websocket.*
package in, and one for servers with both packages in. But I
haven't looked at how other specs manage this yet, so there may be
reasons to do it differently. What do you think ?
I'm going to track it in: http://java.net/jira/browse/WEBSOCKET_SPEC-72
We may well have more server specific classes in future
releases too !
|| Danny Coward