geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geron...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Our 2.1 assemblies are nearly 2x the size of 2.0.2
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:03:11 GMT
I agree. We should make GShell flexible like our Geronimo server.

I don't know if this makes sense but I'll just think aloud. At it's
core should be the most basic features like start/stop and
deploy/undeploy. Since Groovy is the culprit, can Groovy sit this one
out ? I believe we use goals from g-m-p anyways to achieve those basic
features. Everything else should be optionally built up using G-shell
plugins. Groovy support can be one such optional plugin.

Cheers
Prasad

On Dec 5, 2007 9:50 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> 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
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message