Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 19504 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2007 20:12:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jul 2007 20:12:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 28079 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2007 20:12:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 27614 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2007 20:12:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 27603 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jul 2007 20:12:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:12:12 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of david.blevins@visi.com designates 208.42.176.212 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.42.176.212] (HELO g2host.com) (208.42.176.212) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:12:04 +0000 Received: from [76.167.141.63] (account dblevins@visi.com HELO [10.0.1.2]) by mailfront1.g2host.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTPSA id 11866412 for dev@tomcat.apache.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:11:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: <82C99BC1-2042-485D-B278-0D2A5AC31088@visi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Blevins Subject: Re: Inlining dependencies Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:11:38 -0700 To: "Tomcat Developers List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hey, > > On 7/31/07, David Blevins wrote: >> Really curious on what approach you used to inline all your 3rd party >> deps into org.apache.tomcat.util. Curious if you took them as is, or >> trimmed them down to just what you need. Were any tools used to >> help? Any disadvantages that you have noticed other than having to >> port fixes on those libs in? > > IIRC we take a known version of a library and do a string replace on > package names, essentially. It's all done in Ant tasks: look for how > the Tomcat build handles Jakarta Commons DBCP for example. We don't > trim them down AFAIK, nor do we have to do any porting because we > re-grab the library (ideally from a known stable version) with every > release. That's really cool. Thanks for the info. I'm just very impressed with how clean the result is and there's the obvious benefit of those library versions not conflicting with any apps deployed without the need for fancy classloader scoping. -David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org