geronimo-xbean-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Slim spring?
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:54:58 GMT
Done.

-dain

On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:

> +1 spring-module approach, marking all the spring jars as provided.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar  
>> (2M) to the spring module jars?  Here is a sizing chart:
>>
>> spring-beans-2.0.5.jar    379K
>> spring-context-2.0.5.jar  156K
>>                           ----
>>                           531K
>>
>> spring-web-2.0.5.jar      148K  # optional for web context
>> spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar       85K  # optional xbean-server
>>
>>
>> With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings.  This will  
>> also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
>>
>> On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along.  If  
>> anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use  
>> the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the  
>> xbean-spring.  Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and  
>> then the importing project will need to explicitly import spring  
>> in which ever form they like.
>>
>> I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the  
>> spring jars as provided.  This make it easier for users to upgrade  
>> to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> BTW, I did test this actually works :)
>>
>


Mime
View raw message