brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Turli <andrea.tu...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: brooklyn-all-[version]-with-dependencies.jar
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:14:46 GMT
+1 especially the problem with signed jars is particularly annoying. I
think that jar doesn't need to be there.

Andrea
Il 16/apr/2015 12:35, "Svetoslav Neykov" <svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com>
ha scritto:

> +1 for removing it.
> There's another shaded jar which we still need to keep around though -
> jmxmp. Does it really need to depend on Brooklyn?
>
> Svet.
>
>
> > On 16.04.2015 г., at 12:24, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Do we still have a use case for brooklyn-all using maven-shade-plugin
> > to make a "with-dependencies" jar?
> >
> > Since we have a well-established binary build now that easily supports
> > dropping in user's own libraries of entities, I would think that value
> > of this artifact has now dropped.
> >
> > I'm currently working on embedding correct LICENSE and NOTICE files
> > inside the Maven artifacts, and a shaded artifact of this size will
> > cause an absolute nightmare in trying to come up with accurate files
> > and keep them maintained.
> >
> > Furthermore, shading breaks signed jars. We have experience of
> > BouncyCastle failing in obscure ways when it's been shaded into
> > another jar because it's signature is no longer trusted.
> >
> > Note that I'm *not* proposing removing the brooklyn-all entity - which
> > is still a useful Maven meta-dependency for user projects - but I am
> > proposing removing the with-dependencies classified artifact.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Richard.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message