geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Peculiar things about the latest trunk build wrt ActiveMQ
Date Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:29:57 GMT
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 <joe.bohn@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 <joe.bohn@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 <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
> >> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:17 To:Geronimo Dev
> >> >>> <dev@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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message