Ok so the issue I suppose I am eventually getting at here is that we have a 3 ~65MB .war artifacts within the codebase. That seems a bit mental to me. We must be able to make a skinny war without dependencies and just make that available. The 65MB .wars need to be reduced in size.
On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > Right, so in here: > > https://github.com/apache/oodt/blob/master/webapp/components/pom.xml > > You just have plain calls to the various OODT components that the webapps > require to function. > > So, In the wmonitor I seen an exclusion on cas-filemgr which is the sort of > thing I was expecting. > > I don't see how, for example, in the file manager you can scope a > dependency, because surely when you build the core component for deployment > in Radix or something you want the compile time dependencies in the filemgr > lib directory, which means you can't scope it out AFAIK. > > In which case, you need to figure out which dependencies the webapps will > never use, and exclude them. > > That said, your file manager webapp uses an API to communicate with the > file manager server from what I understand. So if the filemanager was down > opsui would still function, just not communicate with the FM. If that is > the case, is there a requirement to bundle the file manager at all, or just > create a light layer that allows for bidirectional communication with the > file manager itself? > > Because its Wicket and JSP's there is a requirement there for OpsUI to use > the jar, but you could swap it out for REST/JSON and have 0 dependency on > the file manager if you are pushing all operations to it and not doing > anything inside OpsUI.... If you can follow any of that rambling. > > > Tom > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > What your saying about te Mars bars is true. > > On the remainder... > > 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of. > > This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout > our > > industry as technical debt. > > @Tom, > > Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or > so > > people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable > > quickly or else realize that there is an environment error. > > > > On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's? > > > > I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom. I > > don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT > > deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us > > reduce the size of these beasts/ > > > > On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the > > > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get > > the > > > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on > > it, > > > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim. > > > > > > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the > > same > > > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which > > doesn't > > > help. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi > <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but > > > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the > > poms > > > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT > > > modules, > > > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that > wont > > > get > > > > used by the webapps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> You bet they are heavy... > > > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning > > six > > > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars > > and a > > > >> can of diet coca cola. > > > >> <scope> is our friend. > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber < > tom.bar...@meteorite.bi <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, > do > > > you > > > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf > > is > > > >> 11mb > > > >> > although I assume that is required. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty > > heavy > > > >> > weight. > > > >> > > > > >> > Tom > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > > > >> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > > >> > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war > > > >> > > > 60777 KB > > > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make > > Moby > > > >> > Dick's > > > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece.. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > > >> > > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that > > pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war > > > is > > > >> > > around > > > >> > > >> the same size > > > >> > > >> 62186 KB > > > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >>> Hi Folks, > > > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is > as > > > >> large > > > >> > as > > > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be > precise. > > > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of > > the > > > >> OODT > > > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual > > > >> scope to > > > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact. > > > >> > > >>> Lewis > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> -- > > > >> > > >>> *Lewis* > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > > > >> > > >> *Lewis* > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > *Lewis* > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> *Lewis* > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Lewis* > > > -- *Lewis*
