You miss my point. Give an example of how to configure such a release profile. Plus how would recompression being on break things? Is the jar spec that weak?
On Monday, 11 February 2013, Anders Hammar wrote: > > Given that people don't do applets any more, and most app servers explode > > the .wars anyway, speed should be king. I'd give an example of turning it > > on for the release profile though on the project site > > > > I don't think having a different setting for releases than for the > snapshots is a good idea. My experience is that very few are using staging, > so they will be testing the snapshots and then trust the release to be the > same. Which it wouldn't in this case. Sure, not doing some kind of > staging/QA is bad practice but people seem to not listen to that advice... > > /Anders > > > > > > > On Monday, 11 February 2013, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > > > 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<javascript:;> > <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > 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 > > > > <javascript:;><javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > <javascript:;><javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
