You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2006/09/12 22:51:17 UTC
Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and activeMQ.
1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going from
something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
excluded from the little-G assemblies.
Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may have
caused #2 above?
Joe
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I've excluded the transitive deps, bringing the rar down to ~1m
Not sure if we need to exclude the others too.. if so, then we should
remove the deps from the pom.
Anyways, I've passed this issue (GERONIMO-1722) to David J for
completion as I am not really sure what needs to be in the rar and
what doesn't.
--jason
On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
> activeMQ.
>
> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>
> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>
> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may
> have caused #2 above?
>
> Joe
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I can do it. I'm going to move all the extras to the j2ee
boilerplate (rars and derby extras).
I think when little-G grows to big-G it will need a list of artifacts
to download and install into the repo.
--jason
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate
>>> assemblies and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>>>
>>> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the
>>> boilderplate for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
>> I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't
>> ship system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars
>> either. All the rars are there only as a convenience for someone
>> who might want to deploy an additional instance: none are needed
>> to run the shipping server. Joe, do you think we should leave
>> them all out of minimal? I'd be fine with that.
>
> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in
> minimal. Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
>
> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get
> included in the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the
> framework to whatever scenario which is how I stumbled upon it).
> Perhaps we can add some artificial dependencies (for example maybe
> from system-database to the derby RARs?). Or we can just require
> that they be pulled manually. Any thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>>
>>> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I
>>>> will fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the
>>>> minimal boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can
>>>> move it to the j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>>>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>>>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>>>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>>>> activeMQ.
>>>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ...
>>>> going from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>>>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>>>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was
>>>> previously excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>>>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that
>>>> may have caused #2 above?
>>>> Joe
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I would definitely say that we want to keep the TranQL database
> connection pool RAR in Little G (what app doesn't use a database?).
We don't need the rar to get system database, just the system
database car file. Assuming that people want to deploy more derby
instances may be a bit presumptuous. You only need the rar to make
it easy for the user to deploy addtional stuff.
> We don't need the ActiveMQ RAR, though, because we don't include JMS
> in Little G.
>
We wouldn't need it even if we did include amq jms.
david jencks
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 9/12/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate
>> assemblies
>> >> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the
>> boilderplate
>> >> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
>> > system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars
>> either. All
>> > the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might
>> want to
>> > deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the shipping
>> > server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of
>> minimal?
>> > I'd be fine with that.
>>
>> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in
>> minimal.
>> Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
>>
>> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get
>> included in
>> the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
>> scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
>> artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database to
>> the
>> derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled
>> manually. Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>> >>
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which
>> I will
>> >>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the
>> minimal
>> >>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it
>> to the
>> >>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>> >>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt
>> ActiveMQ
>> >>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>> >>> activeMQ.
>> >>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
>> >>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>> >>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>> >>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
>> >>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>> >>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change
>> that may
>> >>> have caused #2 above?
>> >>> Joe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
TranQL makes sense for the connection pool mgmt. I assume that is
what you mean Aaron ?
On Sep 13, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Well, we don't include tranql in little-g either. Are you
> suggesting that we pull that it as well?
>
> Joe
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> I would definitely say that we want to keep the TranQL database
>> connection pool RAR in Little G (what app doesn't use a database?).
>> We don't need the ActiveMQ RAR, though, because we don't include JMS
>> in Little G.
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>> On 9/12/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate
>>> assemblies
>>> >> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the
>>> boilderplate
>>> >> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
>>> > system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars
>>> either. All
>>> > the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might
>>> want to
>>> > deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the
>>> shipping
>>> > server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of
>>> minimal?
>>> > I'd be fine with that.
>>>
>>> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in
>>> minimal.
>>> Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
>>>
>>> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get
>>> included in
>>> the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
>>> scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
>>> artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database
>>> to the
>>> derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled
>>> manually. Any
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> >
>>> > thanks
>>> > david jencks
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>>> >>
>>> >> Joe
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which
>>> I will
>>> >>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the
>>> minimal
>>> >>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it
>>> to the
>>> >>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>>> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>>> >>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>>> >>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> >>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>>> >>> activeMQ.
>>> >>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ...
>>> going
>>> >>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>>> >>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>>> >>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was
>>> previously
>>> >>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>>> >>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change
>>> that may
>>> >>> have caused #2 above?
>>> >>> Joe
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I'm saying, we should include everything we need to include to support
database connection pools. I believe that's only the TranQL RAR (not
the TranQL JARs).
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/13/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well, we don't include tranql in little-g either. Are you suggesting
> that we pull that it as well?
>
> Joe
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I would definitely say that we want to keep the TranQL database
> > connection pool RAR in Little G (what app doesn't use a database?).
> > We don't need the ActiveMQ RAR, though, because we don't include JMS
> > in Little G.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 9/12/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> David Jencks wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
> >> >> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate
> >> >> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
> >> > system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars either. All
> >> > the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might want to
> >> > deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the shipping
> >> > server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of minimal?
> >> > I'd be fine with that.
> >>
> >> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in minimal.
> >> Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
> >>
> >> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get included in
> >> the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
> >> scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
> >> artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database to the
> >> derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled manually. Any
> >> thoughts?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> >
> >> > thanks
> >> > david jencks
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
> >> >>
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will
> >> >>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal
> >> >>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the
> >> >>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
> >> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
> >> >>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> >> >>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
> >> >>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
> >> >>> activeMQ.
> >> >>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
> >> >>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
> >> >>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
> >> >>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
> >> >>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
> >> >>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may
> >> >>> have caused #2 above?
> >> >>> Joe
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Well, we don't include tranql in little-g either. Are you suggesting
that we pull that it as well?
Joe
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I would definitely say that we want to keep the TranQL database
> connection pool RAR in Little G (what app doesn't use a database?).
> We don't need the ActiveMQ RAR, though, because we don't include JMS
> in Little G.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 9/12/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
>> >> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate
>> >> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
>> > system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars either. All
>> > the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might want to
>> > deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the shipping
>> > server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of minimal?
>> > I'd be fine with that.
>>
>> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in minimal.
>> Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
>>
>> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get included in
>> the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
>> scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
>> artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database to the
>> derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled manually. Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>> >>
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will
>> >>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal
>> >>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the
>> >>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>> >>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>> >>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>> >>> activeMQ.
>> >>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
>> >>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>> >>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>> >>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
>> >>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>> >>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may
>> >>> have caused #2 above?
>> >>> Joe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I would definitely say that we want to keep the TranQL database
connection pool RAR in Little G (what app doesn't use a database?).
We don't need the ActiveMQ RAR, though, because we don't include JMS
in Little G.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/12/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
> >> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
> >>
> >> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate
> >> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
> >
> >
> > I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
> > system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars either. All
> > the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might want to
> > deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the shipping
> > server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of minimal?
> > I'd be fine with that.
>
> I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in minimal.
> Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
>
> This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get included in
> the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
> scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
> artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database to the
> derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled manually. Any
> thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >>
> >> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will
> >>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal
> >>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the
> >>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
> >>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
> >>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
> >>> activeMQ.
> >>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
> >>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
> >>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
> >>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
> >>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
> >>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may
> >>> have caused #2 above?
> >>> Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
>> and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>>
>> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate
>> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
>
>
> I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
> system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars either. All
> the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might want to
> deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the shipping
> server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of minimal?
> I'd be fine with that.
I guess my take is that we shouldn't include any of the RARs in minimal.
Jason, would you like to do that or shall I?
This also then raises the question of how the RARs will get included in
the little-G growing to big-G scenario (or the framework to whatever
scenario which is how I stumbled upon it). Perhaps we can add some
artificial dependencies (for example maybe from system-database to the
derby RARs?). Or we can just require that they be pulled manually. Any
thoughts?
Joe
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will
>>> fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal
>>> boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the
>>> j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>>> activeMQ.
>>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
>>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
>>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may
>>> have caused #2 above?
>>> Joe
>
>
>
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate
> assemblies and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
>
> I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate
> for minimal. David, can you give some more details?
I guess I was wrong, oh keeper of the minimal :) If we don't ship
system-database with minimal we don't need the derby rars either.
All the rars are there only as a convenience for someone who might
want to deploy an additional instance: none are needed to run the
shipping server. Joe, do you think we should leave them all out of
minimal? I'd be fine with that.
thanks
david jencks
>
> I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
>
> Joe
>
>
> jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I
>> will fix shortly. And David Jencks said to add the rars to the
>> minimal boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move
>> it to the j2ee boilerplate. --jason
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
>> <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and
>> activeMQ.
>> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going
>> from something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
>> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
>> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that
>> may have caused #2 above?
>> Joe
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by ja...@gmail.com.
There is already an issue GERONIMO-1722
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:01:50
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate for
minimal. David, can you give some more details?
I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
Joe
jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will fix shortly.
>
> And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the j2ee boilerplate.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17
> To:Geronimo Dev <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>
>
> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and activeMQ.
>
> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going from
> something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>
> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>
> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may have
> caused #2 above?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Thanks Jason. I had just remembered about the boilerplate assemblies
and noticed the activemq-rar in there.
I don't know why we would need the activemq-rar in the boilderplate for
minimal. David, can you give some more details?
I'll open a JIRA on the deps.
Joe
jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
> The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will fix shortly.
>
> And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the j2ee boilerplate.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17
> To:Geronimo Dev <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
>
>
> I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and activeMQ.
>
> 1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going from
> something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
> 7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
>
> 2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
> excluded from the little-G assemblies.
>
> Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may have
> caused #2 above?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Posted by ja...@gmail.com.
The rar deps need to be excluded... Open issue for that which I will fix shortly.
And David Jencks said to add the rars to the minimal boilerplate, so I did. If that is not correct we can move it to the j2ee boilerplate.
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17
To:Geronimo Dev <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
Subject: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
I noticed two peculiar things about the latest trunk build and activeMQ.
1) The image size of the activeMQ rar file is now huge ... going from
something like 1 meg to a present 7.5 meg:
7,508,415 ge-activemq-rar-1.2-SNAPSHOT.rar
2) This is now included in all assemblies when it was previously
excluded from the little-G assemblies.
Does anybody have any idea on the size issue or the change that may have
caused #2 above?
Joe