I’m down to help investigate this. Let’s create some JIRAs :) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> Reply-To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org> Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:57 AM To: "dev@oodt.apache.org" <dev@oodt.apache.org> Subject: Re: Size of psc-opsui >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> 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> 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:;>> >> > 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:;>> 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:;>> >> > >> 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:;>> 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:;>> 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:;>> 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:;>> 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* >>
