You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xbean-dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2007/07/20 04:28:59 UTC
Slim spring?
How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
----
531K
spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will also
help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use the
spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then the
importing project will need to explicitly import spring in which ever
form they like.
I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade to
newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
-dain
BTW, I did test this actually works :)
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 7/19/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
> to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>
> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
> ----
> 531K
>
> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>
>
> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will also
> help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>
> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use the
> spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
> spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then the
> importing project will need to explicitly import spring in which ever
> form they like.
>
> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade to
> newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>
> -dain
>
> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>
+1
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
We already use the small jars in ServiceMix for classloaders problems, so +1
On 7/20/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
> to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>
> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
> ----
> 531K
>
> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>
>
> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will also
> help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>
> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use the
> spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
> spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then the
> importing project will need to explicitly import spring in which ever
> form they like.
>
> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade to
> newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>
> -dain
>
> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Principal Engineer, IONA
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Done.
-dain
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> +1 spring-module approach, marking all the spring jars as provided.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar
>> (2M) to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>>
>> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
>> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
>> ----
>> 531K
>>
>> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
>> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>>
>>
>> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will
>> also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>>
>> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
>> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use
>> the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the
>> xbean-spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and
>> then the importing project will need to explicitly import spring
>> in which ever form they like.
>>
>> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
>> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade
>> to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>>
>
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Alan Cabrera <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1 spring-module approach, marking all the spring jars as provided.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
> to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>
> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
> ----
> 531K
>
> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>
>
> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will
> also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>
> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use
> the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
> spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then
> the importing project will need to explicitly import spring in
> which ever form they like.
>
> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade
> to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>
> -dain
>
> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Slimmer == better IMO. Still wish those 2 core jars were like half
the size though :-( Maybe someone can shade them to remove any
uneeded crapo? But still 0.5m is *much* better than 2m IMO.
Not sure about the provided bits, IMO it should be easy for folks to
use a newer+compatible version of spring, so whatever that is, I'm
for that. But atm I'm not sure if that is to use provided and force
folks to declare (which they probably already will) or to force folks
to use excludes if needed.
Would be nice of Maven had some support for this uber jar concept and
could handle projects saying that I depend on "spring" and then
figure out what the correct version is to use, regardless of an
uberjar or partials. Or *uck it... just don't use ubers, though I
know they are nice and simple. Blah...
--jason
On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
> to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>
> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
> ----
> 531K
>
> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>
>
> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will
> also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>
> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use
> the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
> spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then
> the importing project will need to explicitly import spring in
> which ever form they like.
>
> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade
> to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>
> -dain
>
> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
Re: Slim spring?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
+1
On 7/19/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
> to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
>
> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
> spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
> ----
> 531K
>
> spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
>
>
> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will also
> help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>
> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use the
> spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
> spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then the
> importing project will need to explicitly import spring in which ever
> form they like.
>
> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
> spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade to
> newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>
> -dain
>
> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com