Slimmer == better IMO. Still wish those 2 core jars were like half
the size though :-( Maybe someone can shade them to remove any
uneeded crapo? But still 0.5m is *much* better than 2m IMO.
Not sure about the provided bits, IMO it should be easy for folks to
use a newer+compatible version of spring, so whatever that is, I'm
for that. But atm I'm not sure if that is to use provided and force
folks to declare (which they probably already will) or to force folks
to use excludes if needed.
Would be nice of Maven had some support for this uber jar concept and
could handle projects saying that I depend on "spring" and then
figure out what the correct version is to use, regardless of an
uberjar or partials. Or *uck it... just don't use ubers, though I
know they are nice and simple. Blah...
--jason
On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
How does everyone feel about changing from the uber-spring jar (2M)
to the spring module jars? Here is a sizing chart:
spring-beans-2.0.5.jar 379K
spring-context-2.0.5.jar 156K
----
531K
spring-web-2.0.5.jar 148K # optional for web context
spring-jmx-2.0.5.jar 85K # optional xbean-server
With full spring at 2M this is a pretty big savings. This will
also help to keep the modules free of using other stuff from spring.
On the other hand, maven and uber jars don't always get along. If
anther project imports xbean-spring, they will either need to use
the spring module jars, or exclude them transitively from the xbean-
spring. Alternatively, we could mark them as provided, and then
the importing project will need to explicitly import spring in
which ever form they like.
I'd prefer we go with the spring-module approach, but mark all the
spring jars as provided. This make it easier for users to upgrade
to newer spring releases (no exclude/reinclude).
-dain
BTW, I did test this actually works :)
