geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: Our 2.1 assemblies are nearly 2x the size of 2.0.2
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:04 GMT
Agree.  We need a minimal runtime that doesn't include all of the 
cloning and gshell support, but which can have it added via plugins if 
someone wants it.


Kevan Miller wrote:
> 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 down...
> --kevan

View raw message