'Lo, On 2015-12-01T10:45:16 -0600 Curtis Rueden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great question! > > I see a couple of approaches: > > 1) Technical solution: I think you are on the right track to use the > maven-shade-plugin. But you shouldn't need the maven-dependency-plugin. The > shade plugin is pretty powerful. Why not just make your single-module > library artifact an "uber-JAR" consisting only of its own sources plus the > relocated+minimized fastutil classes, using <minimizeJar>true</minimizeJar>? The project is actually a multi-module project, with several modules requiring access to the fastutil classes. My main concern is how well IDEs will be able to cope with this... > 2) Social solution: start a discussion with the fastutil team about > modularizing their library for a future (breaking) release. Right now the > packages are divided by primitive type, which seems backwards to me. Better > would be to divide by data structure, with all primitive types in each data > structure package. Then you could cherry pick only the needed data > structure(s) of interest. Obviously this is a longer-term solution. I expect I will approach them, but as you say, that is a longer-term solution and doesn't help right now. > > 3) Punt. Just depend on fastutil and make no apologies. 16MB is really not > that big of a deal these days. Is slimming ~10MB from your footprint really > worth the developer time investment of mucking around with shade etc.? Unfortunately, when it comes to network bandwidth, that is still a big deal here and in other parts of the world. M --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
