I think today we care more about time than size (it shouldn't be gigs ;) wdyt?
*Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/2/11 Kristian Rosenvold <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> > The "fast" mode is twice as fast at "slow", which I see quite a few people > enjoy (these plugins can be quite slow). Initially I measured the increase > in size to be 3-5%, which was why I just flipped default to "fast". It > turned out the projects I measured were rather best-case, and a little more > experience seems to indicate a 10-15% size increase being more of the norm. > > So I have flipped the default back to "slow". Which mode is "best" depends > largely on your perspective ;) I'd say fast beats slow any day of the > week, but I think 10-15% is a bit too much ;) > > BTW; The main part of the increase is actually caused by some jars in > central having little or no compression applied to them. There might be > room for making the compression header sniffing even smarter (recompress if > all files in the zip have "stored" compression type; should be possible to > implement with only performance loss for those few files). > > If anyone wants to have a shot at that I'll happily review such a patch ;) > > Kristian > > > > > 2013/2/8 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > Hi guys, > > > > do you have figures regarding size and execution time? slower/bigger > > doesn't speak that much to help to choose a default config ;) > > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > > > > 2013/2/8 Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > > > > > In general, I think that the default value should be whatever works in > > most > > > cases. Then we could have params for tweaking this (for better > > performance > > > e.g. in specific cases), but it would be up to the user to do this. > > > So, in this specific case, I think the default should be to recompress > so > > > that it always works even though it might be a bit slower. > > > > > > /Anders > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kristian Rosenvold < > > > kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > A lot of you seemed to have realized that the latest version of war > and > > > > assembly have chosen the "fast" option over the "compact" option; and > > you > > > > actually seem to like it ;) > > > > > > > > https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-639 has been filed and > > > "fixed" > > > > which will revert the behaviour back to "slow" for both war and > > assembly, > > > > So what do you think ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kristian > > > > > > > > > >
