+1 to your phasing.
> Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the > classloader I'll create a JIRA :) SOLR-HOME/lib is already supported -- https://nightlies.apache.org/solr/draft-guides/solr-reference-guide-main/libs.html This is what I recommend people use in general. ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:59 AM Houston Putman <[email protected]> wrote: > It could very well be worth shipping two docker images in the meantime. >> Or maybe a zip of each module could be a separate artifact that is >> published? I'm not sure what freedoms we have to do this in the ASF. >> > > I think for 9.0 we could realistically shoot for 2 binary releases and 2 > docker images, slim (without the modules) and full-featured (with the > modules), having the full-featured be the default. > > Starting in the 9.x line, we could start packaging the modules as separate > binary artifacts for the solr release. Then in 10.x we can make the slim > release be the default (still having the fat tgz available as well with as > solr-extended-10.0.0.tgz or something like that). > > >> Phase 1. (9.0): Modularize Solr by extracting obvious low hanging fruits >> plugins into contribs/modules. Make it super easy to launch solr wil any of >> these on class-path (SOLR-15914 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15914>). >> Phase 2 (9.x): Evolve package manager and make it possible to optionally >> install the modules as 1st party packages instead (still fat distro) >> Pase 3: (10.0?): Extract even more features as modules, and publish all >> modules as separate delivery artifacts on DLCDN >> > > I really like this plan. I agree for 9.x we really don't have an option, > but to keep publishing the fat tgz as the default. Even in 10.x I think we > want to offer both a full-featured download and a slim download, but with > first-part-packages we can make slim the "default". > > Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the >> classloader > > I'll create a JIRA :) > > > Yes please. That would be a lovely improvement! People bend-over-backward > currently to add custom libs. > > - Houston > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the >> classloader, similar to what we have with $SOLR_HOME/lib today. The >> disadvantage of $SOLR_HOME/lib is that it can be anywhere, perhaps on a >> Docker volume or a different disk, so you cannot e.g make a Dockerfile like >> >> FROM solr:9.0 >> ADD foo.jar /var/solr/data/lib/foo.jar >> >> ...since /var/solr/data is a volume and will resolve to the volume >> partition of the user, not the content from the image. So if we instead >> allow users to do >> >> FROM solr:9.0 >> ADD foo.jar /opt/solr/lib/ >> >> That is both logical and beautiful, and would always work. >> >> I'll create a JIRA :) >> >> Jan >> >> 13. jan. 2022 kl. 13:57 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected]>: >> >> There is not a lack of vision for future local and remote package >> repositories, but the story is that package mgmt development has stalled, >> and is out of reach for 1st party pkgs in the 9.0.0 timeframe. >> So we have to think progress over perfection - once again >> >> Phase 1. (9.0): Modularize Solr by extracting obvious low hanging fruits >> plugins into contribs/modules. Make it super easy to launch solr wil any of >> these on class-path (SOLR-15914 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15914>). >> Phase 2 (9.x): Evolve package manager and make it possible to optionally >> install the modules as 1st party packages instead (still fat distro) >> Pase 3: (10.0?): Extract even more features as modules, and publish all >> modules as separate delivery artifacts on DLCDN >> >> Regarding phase 2 in 9.x. We cannot really extract a feature into a >> module in e.g. 9.1 so users upgrading from 9.0 will get >> NoClassFoundException. That breaks back-compat. But perhaps we could >> continue modularization efforts in 9.x if we make sure that all new modules >> extracted in a minor release are automatically added to the classloader? >> Then the classes will disappear from solr-core.jar so would possibly break >> someone's custom embedded usecase, but 99% of users would be unaffected. >> Wdyt? >> >> In any case, I think for 9.x the realistic route is to keep our fat tgz, >> but make it slimmer by removing redundancy and prune down on the number of >> overlapping dependencies. That can get us a long way. >> >> Jan >> >> 13. jan. 2022 kl. 03:15 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>: >> >> Shawn: >> * RE redundancies of stuff in /dist/, see >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15916 >> * RE "contrib" vs "module" vs "package", see: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15917 >> * RE not shipping these extras with the Solr distribution, see: "slim >> distro" mention in the document "Solr first party packages" >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7gB2JAdZhlJKFrCd4Txcw4HDkdk7hlULyAZBS-wXrE/edit?usp=sharing >> >> It could very well be worth shipping two docker images in the meantime. >> Or maybe a zip of each module could be a separate artifact that is >> published? I'm not sure what freedoms we have to do this in the ASF. >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:21 PM Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/12/2022 8:31 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote: >>> > I think there are lots of pieces of code in solr-core that can easily >>> be extracted the same way. >>> > Some perhaps even for 9.0.0, as it slims down the core and reduces >>> attack surface for most users as well. >>> >>> I think it would be really awesome if we had a core download that only >>> included basic functionality, and all the other fancy things that Solr >>> does now out of the box (as well as those that are contrib) could be >>> added after download via package scripting or just additional downloads. >>> >>> The size of solr-8.11.1.tgz is 207MiB, or 218076598 bytes. The .zip >>> version is slightly larger. 8.0.0 was 163MiB, 7.0.0 was 142MiBm, 6.0.0 >>> was 131MiB, and 1.4.1 was 53.7MiB. I think it's insane that the >>> download is so big ... and a lot of what makes it big are things that >>> the vast majority of our users will never use. >>> >>> Large reductions in the overall size of the main download would be >>> possible by putting hadoop, calcite, some of the really large lucene >>> analysis components, and the contrib stuff into packages. The >>> extraction contrib alone is 43.5MiB compressed in zip format. >>> >>> I would suggest moving zookeeper and its dependencies as well, but I >>> think we probably want SolrCloud to be part of base functionality. >>> >>> Some of the large jars are included for what are probably insignificant >>> usages, and I wonder if that functionality could be replaced by newer >>> native functions available in Java 8 and later. I am eyeballing things >>> like guava and the commons-* jars here, but I am sure there are other >>> things in this category. I'd like to eliminate as many dependencies as >>> we can. >>> >>> Extracting some things from the solr-core jar into other jars sounds >>> like a really awesome idea. >>> >>> I don't think the solr-core jar should be in the dist directory. It's >>> useless by itself, because it will still have a LOT of dependencies even >>> if we shrink it. And there are likely other things in the dist >>> directory that fall into that category. The test framework and its >>> dependencies are a good candidate for removal. >>> >>> By removing some of the low-hanging fruit that I am SURE isn't needed >>> for base binary functionality on the 8.11.1 download, I was able to end >>> up with a .zip file sized in at 60.4MiB, and I am sure at least a little >>> bit of further reduction is possible if we can fully map out >>> dependencies. I think we can leverage gradle to provide some dependency >>> info. >>> >>> Exactly how to organize the code repo to create divided artifacts is >>> something that we would need to think about. My initial idea is >>> changing "contrib" to "package" and then making some new directories >>> under package. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >>
