maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fast or exact ?
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:26:35 GMT
You miss my point. Give an example of how to configure such a release
profile. Plus how would recompression being on break things? Is the jar
spec that weak?

On Monday, 11 February 2013, Anders Hammar wrote:

> > Given that people don't do applets any more, and most app servers explode
> > the .wars anyway, speed should be king. I'd give an example of turning it
> > on for the release profile though on the project site
> >
>
> I don't think having a different setting for releases than for the
> snapshots is a good idea. My experience is that very few are using staging,
> so they will be testing the snapshots and then trust the release to be the
> same. Which it wouldn't in this case. Sure, not doing some kind of
> staging/QA is bad practice but people seem to not listen to that advice...
>
> /Anders
>
>
>
> >
> > On Monday, 11 February 2013, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >
> > > I think today we care more about time than size (it shouldn't be gigs
> ;)
> > >
> > > wdyt?
> > >
> > > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/2/11 Kristian Rosenvold <kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > >
> > > > The "fast" mode is twice as fast at "slow", which I see quite a few
> > > people
> > > > enjoy (these plugins can be quite slow). Initially I measured the
> > > increase
> > > > in size to be 3-5%, which was why I just flipped default to "fast".
> It
> > > > turned out the projects I measured were rather best-case, and a
> little
> > > more
> > > > experience seems to indicate a 10-15% size increase being more of the
> > > norm.
> > > >
> > > > So I have flipped the default back to "slow". Which mode is "best"
> > > depends
> > > > largely  on your perspective ;) I'd say fast beats slow any day of
> the
> > > > week, but I think 10-15% is a bit too much ;)
> > > >
> > > > BTW; The main part of the increase is actually caused by some jars in
> > > > central having little or no compression applied to them. There might
> be
> > > > room for making the compression header sniffing even smarter
> > (recompress
> > > if
> > > > all files in the zip have "stored" compression type; should be
> possible
> > > to
> > > > implement with only performance loss for those few files).
> > > >
> > > > If anyone wants to have a shot at that I'll happily review such a
> patch
> > > ;)
> > > >
> > > > Kristian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/2/8 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > do you have figures regarding size and execution time?
> slower/bigger
> > > > > doesn't speak that much to help to choose a default config ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > > > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > > > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > > > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > > > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/2/8 Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > In general, I think that the default value should be whatever
> works
> > > in
> > > > > most
> > > > > > cases. Then we could have params for tweaking this (for better
> > > > > performance
> > > > > > e.g. in specific cases), but it would be up to the user to do
> this.
> > > > > > So, in this specific case, I think the default should be to
> > > recompress
> > > > so
> > > > > > that it always works even though it might be a bit slower.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Anders
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > > > > > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A lot of you seemed to have realized that the latest version
of
> > war
> > > > and
> > > > > > > assembly have chosen the "fast" option over the "compact"
> option;
> > > and
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > actually seem to like it ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-639 has been
filed
> > and
> > > > > > "fixed"
> > > > > > > which will revert the behaviour back to "slow" for both
war and
> > > > > assembly,
> > > > > > > So what do you think ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kristian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message