geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: Our 2.1 assemblies are nearly 2x the size of 2.0.2
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:50:29 GMT

On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:

> On 04/12/2007, at 11:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>> A bit harder to apples-to-apples compare the longer term growth.  
>>>>> lib/gshell accounts for a 5 meg growth (unpacked). So, that  
>>>>> would help account for most of the growth in the minimal  
>>>>> assembly...
>>> I wonder if we should consider allowing gshell to be optional...
>> I'd recommend *not*, though if we aren't happy with the additional  
>> bloat from the current impl, we can re-implement in pure-java and  
>> remove the dependency on Groovy.  Its possible, though not very  
>> elegant IMO, as the AntBuilder syntax is ideal for launching new  
>> processes.
> Hi,
> I am actually quite a fan of Groovy commands and really would like  
> Groovy to stick around. Beside the fact that the AntBuilder syntax  
> is neat, Groovy commands could provide a very neat and simple way to  
> dynamically introduce new commands w/o going through a compile  
> cycle. I believe many Geronimo users are Java savvy enough, and  
> hence also Groovy savvy enough to directly implement their commands  
> in Groovy. It is in my understanding that gshell provides a gsh-bsf  
> command (not tried, just read the code) and this is a first way to  
> launch Groovy scripts; however, it would be great to directly map  
> commands to groovy scripts out-of-the-box.

Understood. Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here...

A high percentage of Geronimo users will never create a custom  
Geronimo command, nor create or use GShell scripting capabilities.  
They'll want to start/stop Geronimo and deploy/undeploy applications.

For these capabilities, geronimo-boilerplate-minimal-2.1.jar has grown  
by nearly 200% (3.0 meg -> 8.3 meg).

Also, most users will never generate new server assemblies. Yet, for  
this capability, we're increasing the minimal server size by 8.3 megs  
(essentially including the boilerplate-minimal jar twice). At the  
moment, minimal assembly has grown from 16 megs to 31 megs.

IMO one of Geronimo's major advantages is that it's lightweight and  
flexible. We're still flexible, but we seem to have put on a few  
holiday pounds... I'd like to think about how we can slim things back  


View raw message