+1 for eliminating shaded jars/bundles where possible On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:16 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > Removing them seems valid given the issues noted. > > On 7/26/22 12:18, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > I think removing them would be good for various reasons inc all you > noted below. > > > > On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> We currently deploy these following shaded uber jars with ActiveMQ > Artemis. > >> > >> artemis-jms-client-all > >> artemis-core-client-all > >> artemis-jakarta-client-all > >> > >> We are in the process of removing jboss-logging, and replacing it by > >> SLF4j /LOG4J on a separate branch, and we will probably make a switch > >> on the branch as 3.0. > >> > >> I never really liked these shaded jars as part of the distribution. I > >> would be inclined to remove them on a switch for 3.0 anyways, and now > >> we are having a build issue, > >> as they will fail (on a second build) shading apache-commons-logging: > >> > >> ERROR] Failed to execute goal > >> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-shade-plugin:3.3.0:shade (default) on > >> project artemis-core-client-all: Error creating shaded jar: duplicate > >> entry: META-INF/services/org.apache.activemq.artemis.shaded.org > .apache.commons.logging.LogFactory > >> -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the > >> errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using > >> the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more > >> information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the > >> following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] > >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoExecutionException > >> [ERROR] [ERROR] After correcting the problems, you can resume the > >> build with the command [ERROR] mvn <args> -rf > >> :artemis-core-client-all > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Also, they add about 20MB to our distribution, and more 10MB for the > >> core-client-all that's not on the distro but it is on maven repo. > >> > >> This is a common trend with other projects. Netty stopped producing a > >> netty-all and is offering a pom. Jetty did the same thing.. and There > >> are a lot of issues introduced by an "all client". > >> > >> > >> So, even though we could fix the build, these JARs are never tested as > >> part of the testsuite or anything.... It's like playing with the > >> odds... and they are huge on the distribution as they will all > >> include copies of Netty. > >> > >> > >> I would really like to remove these JARs and I think it would be a > >> great improvement to do so. > >> > >> These POMS are already defining all the dependencies anyway. Any user > >> who wants to have a shaded jar would just be able to shade it > >> themselves as part of their project. > >> > >> > >> If anyone have a strong feeling about keeping them we would need: > >> > >> - your opinion (why we keep them on 3.0) > >> - Help fixing the build on new-logging > >> - Help with adding smoke tests for these jars. > >> > >> > >> anyone? > > > -- > Tim Bish > >
