You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oodt.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/30 01:50:52 UTC
Size of psc-opsui
Hi Folks,
I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large as
Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
reduce the soze of the artifact.
Lewis
--
*Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
OODT-910
On 30 Oct 2015 14:30, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I’m down to help investigate this. Let’s create some JIRAs :)
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:57 AM
> To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Size of psc-opsui
>
> >Right, so in here:
> >
> >https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml
> >
> >You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps
> >require to function.
> >
> >So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort
> >of
> >thing I was expecting.
> >
> >I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a
> >dependency, because surely when you build the core component for
> >deployment
> >in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the
> >filemgr
> >lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK.
> >
> >In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will
> >never use, and exclude them.
> >
> >That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the
> >file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was down
> >opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is
> >the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or
> >just
> >create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the
> >file manager itself?
> >
> >Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to use
> >the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on
> >the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing
> >anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling.
> >
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
> >> On the remainder...
> >> 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
> >> This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout
> >>our
> >> industry as technical debt.
> >> @Tom,
> >> Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or
> >>so
> >> people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
> >> quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
> >>
> >> I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom.
> >>I
> >> don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT
> >> deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
> >> reduce the size of these beasts/
> >>
> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
> >> > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to
> >>get
> >> the
> >> > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on
> >> it,
> >> > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
> >> >
> >> > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the
> >> same
> >> > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which
> >> doesn't
> >> > help.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> >> > <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
> >> > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the
> >> poms
> >> > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
> >> > modules,
> >> > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that
> >>wont
> >> > get
> >> > > used by the webapps.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> You bet they are heavy...
> >> > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning
> >> six
> >> > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars
> >> and a
> >> > >> can of diet coca cola.
> >> > >> <scope> is our friend.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber
> >><tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> >> > <javascript:;>>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for
> >>example, do
> >> > you
> >> > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb),
> >>netcdf
> >> is
> >> > >> 11mb
> >> > >> > although I assume that is required.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty
> >> heavy
> >> > >> > weight.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Tom
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> >> > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> >> > >> > > > 60777 KB
> >> > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make
> >> Moby
> >> > >> > Dick's
> >> > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that
> >> pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
> >> > is
> >> > >> > > around
> >> > >> > > >> the same size
> >> > >> > > >> 62186 KB
> >> > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> >> > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact
> >>is as
> >> > >> large
> >> > >> > as
> >> > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be
> >>precise.
> >> > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None
> >>of
> >> the
> >> > >> OODT
> >> > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is
> >>actual
> >> > >> scope to
> >> > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> >> > >> > > >>> Lewis
> >> > >> > > >>>
> >> > >> > > >>> --
> >> > >> > > >>> *Lewis*
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> --
> >> > >> > > >> *Lewis*
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > --
> >> > >> > > > *Lewis*
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> *Lewis*
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Lewis*
> >>
>
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
I’m down to help investigate this. Let’s create some JIRAs :)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:57 AM
To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <de...@oodt.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Size of psc-opsui
>Right, so in here:
>
>https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml
>
>You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps
>require to function.
>
>So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort
>of
>thing I was expecting.
>
>I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a
>dependency, because surely when you build the core component for
>deployment
>in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the
>filemgr
>lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK.
>
>In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will
>never use, and exclude them.
>
>That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the
>file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was down
>opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is
>the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or
>just
>create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the
>file manager itself?
>
>Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to use
>the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on
>the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing
>anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling.
>
>
>Tom
>
>On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
>> On the remainder...
>> 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
>> This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout
>>our
>> industry as technical debt.
>> @Tom,
>> Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or
>>so
>> people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
>> quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
>>
>> On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
>>
>> I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom.
>>I
>> don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT
>> deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
>> reduce the size of these beasts/
>>
>> On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
>>
>> > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
>> > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to
>>get
>> the
>> > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on
>> it,
>> > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
>> >
>> > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the
>> same
>> > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which
>> doesn't
>> > help.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
>> > <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
>> > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the
>> poms
>> > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
>> > modules,
>> > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that
>>wont
>> > get
>> > > used by the webapps.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> You bet they are heavy...
>> > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning
>> six
>> > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars
>> and a
>> > >> can of diet coca cola.
>> > >> <scope> is our friend.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber
>><tom.barber@meteorite.bi
>> > <javascript:;>>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for
>>example, do
>> > you
>> > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb),
>>netcdf
>> is
>> > >> 11mb
>> > >> > although I assume that is required.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty
>> heavy
>> > >> > weight.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Tom
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>> > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
>> > >> > > > 60777 KB
>> > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make
>> Moby
>> > >> > Dick's
>> > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that
>> pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
>> > is
>> > >> > > around
>> > >> > > >> the same size
>> > >> > > >> 62186 KB
>> > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
>> > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact
>>is as
>> > >> large
>> > >> > as
>> > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be
>>precise.
>> > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None
>>of
>> the
>> > >> OODT
>> > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is
>>actual
>> > >> scope to
>> > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
>> > >> > > >>> Lewis
>> > >> > > >>>
>> > >> > > >>> --
>> > >> > > >>> *Lewis*
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> --
>> > >> > > >> *Lewis*
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > *Lewis*
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> *Lewis*
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
Yeah exactly, I think we are roughly on the same lines, if the war just
proxies stuff off to a filemanager server or whatever, why have the full
filemanager jar? Just have some interface layer that allows the war to
communicate with the remote filemanager server and suddenly you'll have a
2mb war.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok so the issue I suppose I am eventually getting at here is that we have a
> 3 ~65MB .war artifacts within the codebase.
> That seems a bit mental to me.
> We must be able to make a skinny war without dependencies and just make
> that available. The 65MB .wars need to be reduced in size.
>
> On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
>
> > Right, so in here:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml
> >
> > You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps
> > require to function.
> >
> > So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort
> of
> > thing I was expecting.
> >
> > I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a
> > dependency, because surely when you build the core component for
> deployment
> > in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the
> filemgr
> > lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK.
> >
> > In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will
> > never use, and exclude them.
> >
> > That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the
> > file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was
> down
> > opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is
> > the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or
> just
> > create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the
> > file manager itself?
> >
> > Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to
> use
> > the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on
> > the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing
> > anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling.
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
> > > On the remainder...
> > > 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
> > > This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout
> > our
> > > industry as technical debt.
> > > @Tom,
> > > Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or
> > so
> > > people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
> > > quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
> > >
> > > I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent
> Pom. I
> > > don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g.
> OODT
> > > deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
> > > reduce the size of these beasts/
> > >
> > > On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in
> the
> > > > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to
> get
> > > the
> > > > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work
> on
> > > it,
> > > > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
> > > >
> > > > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the
> > > same
> > > > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which
> > > doesn't
> > > > help.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <
> tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars...
> but
> > > > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at
> the
> > > poms
> > > > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
> > > > modules,
> > > > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that
> > wont
> > > > get
> > > > > used by the webapps.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> You bet they are heavy...
> > > > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and
> tanning
> > > six
> > > > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars
> > > and a
> > > > >> can of diet coca cola.
> > > > >> <scope> is our friend.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <
> > tom.barber@meteorite.bi <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for
> example,
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb),
> netcdf
> > > is
> > > > >> 11mb
> > > > >> > although I assume that is required.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty
> > > heavy
> > > > >> > weight.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Tom
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > > > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > > > >> > > > 60777 KB
> > > > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts
> make
> > > Moby
> > > > >> > Dick's
> > > > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that
> > > pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > around
> > > > >> > > >> the same size
> > > > >> > > >> 62186 KB
> > > > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> > > > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact
> is
> > as
> > > > >> large
> > > > >> > as
> > > > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be
> > precise.
> > > > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None
> of
> > > the
> > > > >> OODT
> > > > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is
> actual
> > > > >> scope to
> > > > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> > > > >> > > >>> Lewis
> > > > >> > > >>>
> > > > >> > > >>> --
> > > > >> > > >>> *Lewis*
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> --
> > > > >> > > >> *Lewis*
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > *Lewis*
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> *Lewis*
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Lewis*
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Ok so the issue I suppose I am eventually getting at here is that we have a
3 ~65MB .war artifacts within the codebase.
That seems a bit mental to me.
We must be able to make a skinny war without dependencies and just make
that available. The 65MB .wars need to be reduced in size.
On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
> Right, so in here:
>
> https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml
>
> You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps
> require to function.
>
> So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort of
> thing I was expecting.
>
> I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a
> dependency, because surely when you build the core component for deployment
> in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the filemgr
> lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK.
>
> In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will
> never use, and exclude them.
>
> That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the
> file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was down
> opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is
> the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or just
> create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the
> file manager itself?
>
> Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to use
> the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on
> the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing
> anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling.
>
>
> Tom
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
> > On the remainder...
> > 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
> > This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout
> our
> > industry as technical debt.
> > @Tom,
> > Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or
> so
> > people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
> > quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
> >
> > On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
> >
> > I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom. I
> > don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT
> > deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
> > reduce the size of these beasts/
> >
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
> > > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get
> > the
> > > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on
> > it,
> > > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
> > >
> > > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the
> > same
> > > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which
> > doesn't
> > > help.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
> > > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the
> > poms
> > > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
> > > modules,
> > > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that
> wont
> > > get
> > > > used by the webapps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> You bet they are heavy...
> > > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning
> > six
> > > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars
> > and a
> > > >> can of diet coca cola.
> > > >> <scope> is our friend.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <
> tom.barber@meteorite.bi <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example,
> do
> > > you
> > > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf
> > is
> > > >> 11mb
> > > >> > although I assume that is required.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty
> > heavy
> > > >> > weight.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Tom
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > > >> > > > 60777 KB
> > > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make
> > Moby
> > > >> > Dick's
> > > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that
> > pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
> > > is
> > > >> > > around
> > > >> > > >> the same size
> > > >> > > >> 62186 KB
> > > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> > > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is
> as
> > > >> large
> > > >> > as
> > > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be
> precise.
> > > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of
> > the
> > > >> OODT
> > > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual
> > > >> scope to
> > > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> > > >> > > >>> Lewis
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> --
> > > >> > > >>> *Lewis*
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> --
> > > >> > > >> *Lewis*
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > *Lewis*
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> *Lewis*
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Lewis*
> >
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
Right, so in here:
https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml
You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps
require to function.
So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort of
thing I was expecting.
I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a
dependency, because surely when you build the core component for deployment
in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the filemgr
lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK.
In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will
never use, and exclude them.
That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the
file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was down
opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is
the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or just
create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the
file manager itself?
Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to use
the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on
the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing
anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling.
Tom
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
> On the remainder...
> 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
> This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout our
> industry as technical debt.
> @Tom,
> Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or so
> people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
> quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
>
> On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
>
> I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom. I
> don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT
> deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
> reduce the size of these beasts/
>
> On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
>
> > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
> > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get
> the
> > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on
> it,
> > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
> >
> > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the
> same
> > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which
> doesn't
> > help.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> > <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
> > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the
> poms
> > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
> > modules,
> > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that wont
> > get
> > > used by the webapps.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You bet they are heavy...
> > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning
> six
> > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars
> and a
> > >> can of diet coca cola.
> > >> <scope> is our friend.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do
> > you
> > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf
> is
> > >> 11mb
> > >> > although I assume that is required.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty
> heavy
> > >> > weight.
> > >> >
> > >> > Tom
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > >> > > > 60777 KB
> > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make
> Moby
> > >> > Dick's
> > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that
> pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
> > is
> > >> > > around
> > >> > > >> the same size
> > >> > > >> 62186 KB
> > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as
> > >> large
> > >> > as
> > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of
> the
> > >> OODT
> > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual
> > >> scope to
> > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> > >> > > >>> Lewis
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> --
> > >> > > >>> *Lewis*
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> --
> > >> > > >> *Lewis*
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > *Lewis*
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *Lewis*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
What your saying about te Mars bars is true.
On the remainder...
220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of.
This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout our
industry as technical debt.
@Tom,
Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or so
people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable
quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's?
I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom. I
don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT
deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us
reduce the size of these beasts/
On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
> On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
> book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get the
> Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on it,
> I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
>
> Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the same
> box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which doesn't
> help.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
> > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the poms
> > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT
> modules,
> > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that wont
> get
> > used by the webapps.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> You bet they are heavy...
> >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning six
> >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars and a
> >> can of diet coca cola.
> >> <scope> is our friend.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do
> you
> >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is
> >> 11mb
> >> > although I assume that is required.
> >> >
> >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy
> >> > weight.
> >> >
> >> > Tom
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> >> > >
> >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> >> > > > 60777 KB
> >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby
> >> > Dick's
> >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war
> is
> >> > > around
> >> > > >> the same size
> >> > > >> 62186 KB
> >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as
> >> large
> >> > as
> >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the
> >> OODT
> >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual
> >> scope to
> >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> >> > > >>> Lewis
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> --
> >> > > >>> *Lewis*
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> *Lewis*
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > *Lewis*
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Lewis*
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the
book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get the
Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on it,
I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim.
Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the same
box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which doesn't
help.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
wrote:
> I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but
> either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the poms
> they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT modules,
> it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that wont get
> used by the webapps.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You bet they are heavy...
>> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning six
>> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars and a
>> can of diet coca cola.
>> <scope> is our friend.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do you
>> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is
>> 11mb
>> > although I assume that is required.
>> >
>> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy
>> > weight.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > >
>> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
>> > > > 60777 KB
>> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby
>> > Dick's
>> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is
>> > > around
>> > > >> the same size
>> > > >> 62186 KB
>> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi Folks,
>> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as
>> large
>> > as
>> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
>> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the
>> OODT
>> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual
>> scope to
>> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
>> > > >>> Lewis
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>> *Lewis*
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> *Lewis*
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > *Lewis*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>>
>
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but either
way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the poms they are
dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT modules, it might
be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that wont get used by
the webapps.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> You bet they are heavy...
> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning six
> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars and a
> can of diet coca cola.
> <scope> is our friend.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>
> wrote:
>
> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do you
> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is
> 11mb
> > although I assume that is required.
> >
> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy
> > weight.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > > > 60777 KB
> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby
> > Dick's
> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is
> > > around
> > > >> the same size
> > > >> 62186 KB
> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Folks,
> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as
> large
> > as
> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the
> OODT
> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope
> to
> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> > > >>> Lewis
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> *Lewis*
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> *Lewis*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Lewis*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
You bet they are heavy...
Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning six
bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars and a
can of diet coca cola.
<scope> is our friend.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
> Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do you
> need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is 11mb
> although I assume that is required.
>
> Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy
> weight.
>
> Tom
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > > 60777 KB
> > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby
> Dick's
> > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is
> > around
> > >> the same size
> > >> 62186 KB
> > >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Folks,
> > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large
> as
> > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
> > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
> > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> > >>> Lewis
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> *Lewis*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *Lewis*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Lewis*
> >
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do you
need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is 11mb
although I assume that is required.
Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy
weight.
Tom
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> > 60777 KB
> > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby Dick's
> > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is
> around
> >> the same size
> >> 62186 KB
> >> These are HUGE for web application containers.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Folks,
> >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large as
> >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
> >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
> >>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> >>> Lewis
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Lewis*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Lewis*
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Lewis*
>
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
> 60777 KB
> I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby Dick's
> forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is around
>> the same size
>> 62186 KB
>> These are HUGE for web application containers.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large as
>>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
>>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
>>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
>>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
>>> Lewis
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Lewis*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war
60777 KB
I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby Dick's
forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece..
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is around
> the same size
> 62186 KB
> These are HUGE for web application containers.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large as
>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
>> reduce the soze of the artifact.
>> Lewis
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: Size of psc-opsui
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war is around
the same size
62186 KB
These are HUGE for web application containers.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as large as
> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise.
> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the OODT
> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual scope to
> reduce the soze of the artifact.
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
--
*Lewis*