You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> on 2011/01/30 20:30:49 UTC
XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
In regards to this ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388
Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations from the pom.xml.
Any objections?
Thanks,
John
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
And throwing support for JDK 1.4, there are still some parts about that in poms
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Kapituła Javarsovia http://javarsovia.pl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
I also like the idea to extract the View from the Core to external
plugins - jsp, velocity, freemarker. Then the Core can be merged with
Xwork and play the role of an universal Controller. Right now, when
you're using REST plugin, JSP is included in your project anyway.
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Kapituła Javarsovia http://javarsovia.pl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
(Sorry, this was in my drafts from a couple of days ago.)
2011/2/1 Jordi Fernández Wrote:
> How can we cooridinate efforts effectively?
Maybe via JIRA tickets, with some over-arching tickets that we can add
dependencies to as we refine the tasks? Is that too complicated?
My hit lists:
* S2.0 wiki docs
Removing 2.0 info from the *current* wiki for future distros. Previous
static exports cover that need.
* XWork core cleanup
Removing stuff duped by commons. Look to see if injection stuff should
be reworked.
* S2
Loop over plugins and docs to see if they still work, what isn't there
we should have, what's useless, etc. Stop distro of codebehind, dojo
plugins and move to historical holding area or move elsewhere.
* EL? Templates?
Room for speed improvements: stick with OGNL or switch default?
Anything we can do to re-org templates and make theming/templating
more fluid?
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Jordi Fernández <jo...@esilog.com>.
I agree. This is a discussion needed to determine short-, medium and
long term goals. If we agree priorities can be more effective at the
time we spend. Right now my colleague Albert and I are still working
on improving and expanding the capabilities of the REST plugin to easy
the creation of hypermedia driven applications. Honestly, I think this
is a crucial point if we want struts 2 to stay relevant . But that is
our point of view. Improving documentation is a must as well. How can
we cooridinate efforts effectively?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John Lindal wrote:
>
>> Why do you consider its position precarious? Stability is good in the corp
>> world :)
>>
>
> Precarious in that:
>
> 1) Not huge uptake due to plethora of options--can't reduce the number of
> options, but can make S2 more appealing.
> 2) Some plugins are pretty rusty.
> 3) Docs need some serious gardening and re-org
> 4) Stability is fine; COBOL was stable for a really long time. But with that
> should come innovation and good reasons to stick with it other than inertia.
> 5) I think if the internals were leaner/cleaner it'd be easier to take stock
> of where we're at and tighten things up.
>
> Dave
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Since the discussion is pretty quiet, I'll toss out a few more questions. (I don't have any good answers, since I'm pretty new here :)
1) Not huge uptake due to plethora of options--can't reduce the number of
options, but can make S2 more appealing.
Agreed. Options are good :)
I'm not intimately familiar with the docs yet. Are the options organized into beginner, intermediate, expert categories to avoid overwhelming people?
2) Some plugins are pretty rusty.
Which ones? The ones nobody uses or the ones everybody would like to use if they weren't so rusty? If the former, perhaps they should be retired instead of polished?
5) I think if the internals were leaner/cleaner it'd be easier to take stock
of where we're at and tighten things up.
Anything in particular that you can think of? "Internals" covers a lot of ground :)
I agree. This is a discussion needed to determine short-, medium and
long term goals. If we agree priorities can be more effective at the
time we spend. Right now my colleague Albert and I are still working
on improving and expanding the capabilities of the REST plugin to easy
the creation of hypermedia driven applications. Honestly, I think this
is a crucial point if we want struts 2 to stay relevant . But that is
our point of view. Improving documentation is a must as well. How can
we cooridinate efforts effectively?
The simple answer would seem to be that this dev list is the best place to coordinate efforts. It sounds like you want to know if anybody else is working on REST? (I'm working primarily on security-related issues.)
John
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John Lindal wrote:
> Why do you consider its position precarious? Stability is good in the corp
> world :)
>
Precarious in that:
1) Not huge uptake due to plethora of options--can't reduce the number of
options, but can make S2 more appealing.
2) Some plugins are pretty rusty.
3) Docs need some serious gardening and re-org
4) Stability is fine; COBOL was stable for a really long time. But with that
should come innovation and good reasons to stick with it other than inertia.
5) I think if the internals were leaner/cleaner it'd be easier to take stock
of where we're at and tighten things up.
Dave
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com>.
It sounds like a good discussion to have.
Why do you consider its position precarious? Stability is good in the corp world :)
John
On 2/1/11 8:32 AM, "Dave Newton" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't recall the original reason for the shading anymore.
Part of it was wrapped up in a discussion about removing XW functionality
that dupes Commons stuff, which never really got started on.
There are some corners that really need some dusting--I think S2 is in kind
of a precarious position right now.
Do people have any interest in thinking about what direction(s) S2 wants to
go in at this point?
Dave
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:21 AM, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> The reason I don't think io needs to be shaded is because io was never
> actually shaded. Lang was being shaded into io, which can't possibly be
> right.
>
> > <relocation>
> > -
> <pattern>org.apache.commons.lang</pattern>
> > + <pattern>org.apache.commons.io
> </pattern>
> >
> <shadedPattern>org.apache.commons.io.xwork</shadedPattern>
> > </relocation>
>
> I've been running a patched version of Struts 2.2.1 without shading either
> asm or io for months now. That's why I asked if I should just remove the
> shading, to reduce the jar size.
>
> John
>
>
> On 1/31/11 8:40 PM, "Maurizio Cucchiara" <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> John,
> I didn't follow the asm's matter, but as I said a couple of days ago
> [1] struts-core already depends on commons-io library (actually is a
> fileupload's dependency), so there cannot be a struts application
> without common-io library along its path.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3549
>
> On 30 January 2011 20:30, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> > In regards to this ticket:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388
> >
> > Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either
> org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these
> relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could
> significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations
> from the pom.xml.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
I don't recall the original reason for the shading anymore.
Part of it was wrapped up in a discussion about removing XW functionality
that dupes Commons stuff, which never really got started on.
There are some corners that really need some dusting--I think S2 is in kind
of a precarious position right now.
Do people have any interest in thinking about what direction(s) S2 wants to
go in at this point?
Dave
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:21 AM, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> The reason I don't think io needs to be shaded is because io was never
> actually shaded. Lang was being shaded into io, which can't possibly be
> right.
>
> > <relocation>
> > -
> <pattern>org.apache.commons.lang</pattern>
> > + <pattern>org.apache.commons.io
> </pattern>
> >
> <shadedPattern>org.apache.commons.io.xwork</shadedPattern>
> > </relocation>
>
> I've been running a patched version of Struts 2.2.1 without shading either
> asm or io for months now. That's why I asked if I should just remove the
> shading, to reduce the jar size.
>
> John
>
>
> On 1/31/11 8:40 PM, "Maurizio Cucchiara" <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> John,
> I didn't follow the asm's matter, but as I said a couple of days ago
> [1] struts-core already depends on commons-io library (actually is a
> fileupload's dependency), so there cannot be a struts application
> without common-io library along its path.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3549
>
> On 30 January 2011 20:30, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> > In regards to this ticket:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388
> >
> > Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either
> org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these
> relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could
> significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations
> from the pom.xml.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com>.
The reason I don't think io needs to be shaded is because io was never actually shaded. Lang was being shaded into io, which can't possibly be right.
> <relocation>
> - <pattern>org.apache.commons.lang</pattern>
> + <pattern>org.apache.commons.io</pattern>
> <shadedPattern>org.apache.commons.io.xwork</shadedPattern>
> </relocation>
I've been running a patched version of Struts 2.2.1 without shading either asm or io for months now. That's why I asked if I should just remove the shading, to reduce the jar size.
John
On 1/31/11 8:40 PM, "Maurizio Cucchiara" <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
I didn't follow the asm's matter, but as I said a couple of days ago
[1] struts-core already depends on commons-io library (actually is a
fileupload's dependency), so there cannot be a struts application
without common-io library along its path.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3549
On 30 January 2011 20:30, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> In regards to this ticket:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388
>
> Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations from the pom.xml.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
--
Maurizio Cucchiara
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork maven-shade-plugin configuation
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <ma...@gmail.com>.
John,
I didn't follow the asm's matter, but as I said a couple of days ago
[1] struts-core already depends on commons-io library (actually is a
fileupload's dependency), so there cannot be a struts application
without common-io library along its path.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3549
On 30 January 2011 20:30, John Lindal <li...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> In regards to this ticket:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388
>
> Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations from the pom.xml.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
--
Maurizio Cucchiara
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org