Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48457 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2007 16:03:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2007 16:03:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 10238 invoked by uid 500); 6 Dec 2007 16:03:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 9815 invoked by uid 500); 6 Dec 2007 16:03:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 9804 invoked by uid 99); 6 Dec 2007 16:03:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:03:32 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com designates 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.146.176] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:03:09 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j4so652350wah for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:03:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=AC/f/pnZrMHFVviFYzGMDMAChJFvVOcKDtdVSO7Ovwk=; b=rgAF422WOVGEX/7YWBGVCELOWSw1/tIb7xE7I3n9Jp6vhkcfjZSgj5uviZkvqE0kEn3L/kf6ErBkk3jv/rJTvVGcbVjny100eOVtIupo4IHgE8RTHzSsYNLc8h/29eFH4fEvA4R98tplYZDbov8cPLsxe/XrA9e1Re4B0bH4Vic= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sbz5Uv55D6Ie0dYthK5ZMlV9px9YF8Muv09b+AOx7LreKCd93KPK88tER/LSkrbWWntZH2/LKTLwCMi5GH5TygkyirK6s2QPkmJr15pl0TuECpnWoka/V9pdcJueuH3SdyFfNL3OK8S5KcJqocgS/+hlHIrGBA+lITUVBMjhUGQ= Received: by 10.114.59.1 with SMTP id h1mr1753509waa.1196956991507; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.177.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:03:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:03:11 -0500 From: "Prasad Kashyap" To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Our 2.1 assemblies are nearly 2x the size of 2.0.2 In-Reply-To: <17BFCFC6-DC47-4D90-BCA6-5332470F712B@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <475095C2.4000307@earthlink.net> <7E88E1BD-1DE8-424D-8DC8-B6D14FB78C5E@gmail.com> <02172C3C-4C11-494F-8DF6-783092133223@optusnet.com.au> <17BFCFC6-DC47-4D90-BCA6-5332470F712B@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 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 > > >