I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big. Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
cache-api-1.0.0.jar commons-codec-1.11.jar commons-logging-1.1.1.jar h2-1.4.197.jar ignite-core-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ignite-indexing-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar ignite-spring-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar lucene-analyzers-common-7.4.0.jar lucene-core-7.4.0.jar lucene-queryparser-7.4.0.jar spring-aop-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-beans-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-context-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-expression-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-jdbc-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar spring-tx-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar Those are required for SQL and Spring configs to work properly, maybe we want to include them into the slim distro as well. On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > This is a reasonable idea. > > I think we should also drop benchmarks/ directory from that build, it's 60M > of (potentially vulnerable) JARs that are not needed by an average > developer's use cases. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > >: > > > Igniters, > > > > I would like to discuss with the community a possibility to create > > additional 'slim' binary releases and docker images for Apache Ignite. > The > > reason is two-fold: > > * The full set of 3rd party libraries distributed with Apache Ignite > looks > > too large for me. I know there is an ongoing activity towards more clear > > Ignite modularization [1][2][3], but this seems to be quite a long > process. > > On the other hand, creating a slim release may give an immediate benefit > to > > the users who are interested in a smaller image. For example, removing > the > > benchmarks alone from the binary release saves 80M. > > * As Ilya Kasnacheev demonstrated [4], the more 3rd party libraries we > > have, the more potential vulnerabilities will show up in audit tools. > This > > may be a formal barrier for Apache Ignite adoption and moving to > production > > for many users. Having a slim image with the minimum number of > dependencies > > (yet complete enough to fit the majority of use-cases) significantly > > reduces this risk. > > > > I wonder what community thinks regarding this idea? Given the recent > study > > of Apache Ignite use-cases, I suggest the following list of modules to be > > included to the slim release/image (a subject to discuss, of course): > > * ignite-core > > * ignite-indexing > > * ignite-rest-http > > * ignite-spring > > * ignite-log4j > > * ignite-log4j2 > > * ignite-slf4j > > * ignite-urideploy > > * ignite-kubernetes > > * ignite-opencensus > > > > [1] > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Ignite-3-0-and-to-be-removed-list-td42330.html > > [2] > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12358-Migrate-ZeroMQ-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45067.html > > [3] > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12361-Migrate-Flume-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45010.html > > [4] > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-8-RELEASE-Time-Scope-Manager-td43616i100.html#a44994 > > > > --AG > > >
