tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
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 <>
> Reply-To:
> To:
> 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

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)

View raw message