Good point Stefan, thats exactly the cause why we (JAMES) exclude a bunch of dependencies. I think jackrabbit would better be of to provide a "light" distribution or mark things like these a optional.
Bye, Norman 2011/2/2 Stefan Guggisberg <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 02/01/2011 04:35 PM, GOODWIN, MATTHEW (ATTCORP) wrote: >>> >>> We'd like to trim down the required dependencies that are deployed >>> in our application. >> >> Do you have some pressing need for this (size, licensing, etc.)? If not, >> by far the easiest solution is just to leave the dependencies intact, as >> otherwise you'll need to keep reviewing your custom deployment whenever >> you do an upgrade as the dependency graph may have changed. >> >> In the end it's just a few megabytes of extra bits which should nowadays > > sorry, but i don't agree. adding 'just a few megabytes' of extra dependencies > which the majority of the users won't need do add up in the end and > might cause conflicts in different deployment scenarios. > > the recent addition of the netcdf library is IMO an excellent example. > apparently it did cause classloader issues, it increased the size of > stand-alone > jackrabbit by 15% and the majority of jackrabbit users will probably > never use it... [1] > > just my 0.02$ > > cheers > stefan > > [1] > http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/unable-to-build-trunk-missing-dependency-tp3080075p3080160.html > >> only be a problem if you're targeting a mobile or other embedded >> environment. If you do and there's wider demand for something like this, we >> might want to consider including such a jackrabbit-lite package in our >> normal releases. >> >>> I've seen the output of the mvn dependency:tree but I was curious if >>> some of the poi dependencies can be excluded at runtime. >> >> The POI libraries are used for full text indexing of various Microsoft file >> formats, most notably MS Office. >> >> -- >> Jukka Zitting >> >
