geronimo-xbean-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Slim spring?
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:45:50 GMT
+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