tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject Re: failure notice (fwd)
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:48:05 GMT


On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Remy Maucherat wrote:

> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:47:21 -0700
> From: Remy Maucherat <rmaucher1@home.com>
> Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: failure notice (fwd)
>
> > Sign ... sometimes 100k is too small.
> >
> > I just did a pretty good-sized commit to switch our XML parsing activity
> > over to the Digester package from jakarta-commons, with a very noticeable
> > improvement in startup performance.  Here's the summary of the changes.
>
> It does seem faster indeed.
>
> Would it be acceptable if we just committed the appropriate version of each
> library in the CVS ?
> Thay're small, and there's 3 of them ...
>

In case anybody doesn't know how I feel about JARs in CVS ... YUCK.

:-)

IMHO, it's not an issue of size, or even where they come from.  JARs in
CVS cause people to lose track of what they really depend on, and (more
particularly) the *version* of things you depend on.  It just gets worse
when you check in things that were built from mutually-incompatible common
dependents.  If Gump has taught us anything, this should be one of the key
insights.

And, if you've ever tried to update jakarta-site2, or other repositories
that store lots of JARs, when you're dialed in at 56k you won't think much
of the idea either.

Besides, quick-and-easy grabbing of dependencies was what the
so-far-incomplete CJAN/JJAR/whatever type projects were supposed to solve.
I'd prefer to wait for the real solution.

> Remy
>
>

Craig (who's thinking about ways to get out of the circular dependency
trap on the JARs we already have checked in)



Mime
View raw message