myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Aranda <brunoara...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Elimiante jar files from SVN
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2005 06:58:28 GMT
And, returning to the developer POV, you might want the sources for two things:

1. Take a glance to the code to see how something is implemented.
2. Develop and/or build from sources.

IMO, for both cases is easier to download the jars using the script.
Probably, for #1 jars are not essential, so the checkout is faster and
you can get to the code sooner. If you want to do #2, you will have to
execute the build.xml file, so it is acceptable to download the
dependencies at this stage. I only see one disadvantage (and many
advantages) in this approach: you need to execute the build.xml being
online, at least the first time.

By the way, bandwith would be divided between the source repository
(ASF) and the binary repository (Ibiblio or similar). It is obvious
than, as Craig pointed, in the jars-in-SVN approach Apache might have
many copies of the same commons-whathever lib (one or more for every
project, the same version or a different one), while the binary
repository would contain only one per version.

Regards,

Bruno

2005/6/27, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@gmail.com>:
> On 6/26/05, Oliver Rossmueller <oliver@tuxerra.com> wrote:
> > Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >
> > >On 6/24/05, James Mitchell <jmitchell@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>Wrom: SZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMN
> > >>To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> > >>Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:08 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: Proposal: Elimiante jar files from SVN
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>James Mitchell wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Unless I missed it somewhere, no one has mentioned the extra bloat
in
> > >>>>your source distributions (if you include the binary dependencies).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>James,
> > >>>
> > >>>you need the binary dependencies anyway to build the project, so what
is
> > >>>your point? You download the source distribution with libs included
or
> > >>>you download the source distribution without libs and ant does the lib
> > >>>download afterwards. The sum of required network traffic is the same.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>That's true for the developer.  But I was also considering ASF hardware
and
> > >>bandwidth.  Again, that's a drop in the bucket if only MyFaces were doing
> > >>it.  But you are not.  I have had this same conversation (beating the same
> > >>dead horse) with developers on other projects, both here, sf.net, and many,
> > >>MANY closed source projects.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >To reinforce this point, even though *you* (someone downloading the
> > >CVS or SVN sources of a project) does not pay for the network
> > >bandwidth, the ASF *does* pay for it.  I'd rather see that money
> > >supporting more users, rather than downloading zillions of copies of
> > >the same JAR files.
> > >
> > >
> > Craig,
> >
> > just for the record: my ISP does not give me internet access for free so
> > of course I'm paying for the network bandwidth, too. But that's not the
> > main topic. What's the topic is that I can't see the difference between
> >
> > - check out the required libraries together with the project sources
> > from SVN
> >
> > and
> >
> > - check out the project sources without required libraries from SVN and
> > afterwards call an ant target to download the required libs from some
> > apache jar repository.
> >
> > If you ask me the difference in network traffic between the two
> > scnearios is close to zero as the required jars have to be transfered to
> > my local hard disk anyway, so what's your point?
> >
> 
> The point is very simple ... who is paying for it?
> 
> In the "checked into the repository" case, it is *always* Apache that
> is paying for it, because access to the repository servers is not
> mirrored.  In the "get it from some binary repository" case, the vast
> majority of the time you will be getting it from some site that is
> themselves donating bandwidth to support Apache (by being a mirror),
> but the costs are not borne by the Apache Software Foundation
> directly.
> 
> > And if I'm informed correctly in case a new version of a required lib is
> > needed SVN is even more efficent than the solution you propose: SVN will
> > just transfer the diffs between the two binaries like rsync does, but
> > with your solution ant has to download the complete jar.
> >
> > By the way, discussing ASF's infrastructure costs will lead to nothing,
> > don't you think?
> 
> If you believe that, we have nothing further to talk about, so I'll
> just delete the rest of your message and reply now.
> 
> Craig
>

Mime
View raw message