karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org>
Subject Re: Size of karaf distributions
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:17:41 GMT
I don't think that removing diagnostic will be a good choice. It is only 61K and it may stay
as core service, similary to features.

Best regards,
Lukasz
--
Code-House
http://code-house.org

> Agreed, just the console and basic commands could be enough I suppose.
> I think removing the console would make things more difficult as users
> won't be able to install additional features easily.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 14:30, Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good Christian.
>> 
>> Back to the larger theme, we appear to be making head way in reducing
>> the overall size of the distribution with the Aether issue reviewed
>> above, now to reducing convenience features in Karaf to make it
>> 'minimal'...
>> 
>> The goal here would be to define the lowest possible set of features
>> to make Karaf useful, but very feature bare?
>> 
>> In this case removing diagnostics, management, some deployer support,
>> and possibly even JAAS or instance admin could be considered. We could
>> go as far to reduce logging support as well. How bare bones a
>> distribution can we design while still being useful enough to not
>> cause heavy frustration (if everyone has to immediately add back a
>> particular feature then we should probably not remove it).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jamie
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Christian Schneider
>> <chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>> Especially for 2.x I can remove it. Currently I only use it to convert from
>>> maven coords to artifact. That probably will also make it easier to use the
>>> same code on karaf 3. So we could simply wait till aether finishes the move
>>> to eclipse and offers bundles.
>>> 
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 03.01.2012 13:59, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>> 
>>>> Well, I'm not convinced that adding 3 Mb to the base distribution just
>>>> for a completer is really worth it, especially in the stable 2.x
>>>> branch.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 13:56, Christian Schneider
>>>> <chris@die-schneider.net>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I just filed an issue with the aether project to provide bundles and
will
>>>>> help to resolve this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently I am using aether in the 2.2.x branch already. But just
>>>>> internally
>>>>> and could remove it if we decide to not depend on it. I will
>>>>> also provide the code for the trunk in karaf but di not get it working
>>>>> till
>>>>> now so I did not yet commit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Christian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 03.01.2012 13:48, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking at the code, we use org.ops4j.pax.url.maven.commons package,
>>>>>> but not really aether.
>>>>>> So it may be possible to embed only the packages needed and not the
>>>>>> full aether api.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alternatively, if we really need aether, it may be better to install
>>>>>> it as a real bundle and have it shared by pax-url-aether and the
dev
>>>>>> commands.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 20:25, Christian Schneider
>>>>>> <chris@die-schneider.net>    wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The pax url dep came from me.  I wanted to discuss this anyway.
For
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> do right now pax url aether is not absolutely necessary. So I
could
>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>> that with some own code. On the other hand it may be interesting
to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> services in pax based on the aether api like get available versions
of
>>>>>>> artifact. Perhaps even browse maven repos with some extensions.
This
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> allow content assist for mvn urls.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So what do you guys think. Do we plan to use aether more or should
we
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> rid of it again?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Am 02.01.2012 19:16, schrieb Jamie G.:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Running a quick diff on minimal and standard kits the largest
>>>>>>>> difference appears to be that the standard distribution includes
demos
>>>>>>>> and a few extra jars in the system folder.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.region.commands-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ->
     23K
>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.config-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ->  
   43K
>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.services-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ->
     25K
>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.ssh-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ->     
38K
>>>>>>>> mina-core-2.0.3.jar ->      630K
>>>>>>>> sshd-core-0.6.0.jar ->      320K
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When the above is removed then this accounts for the 1Mb
reduction in
>>>>>>>> size to become 'minimal'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Looking at the largest jars in the system folder we have:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2.3M org.apache.karaf.shell.dev-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>>>>>> 1.3M osgi-3.7.1.R37x_v20110808-1106.jar
>>>>>>>> 2.5M pax-url-aether-1.3.5.jar
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All other jars are under a Mb, the largest of which are:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 367K org.apache.aries.blueprint.core-0.4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>>>>>> 120K org.apache.aries.jmx-0.3.jar
>>>>>>>> 104K org.apache.aries.util-0.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>>>>>> 206K commons-jexl-2.0.jar
>>>>>>>> 470K org.apache.felix.framework-4.0.2.jar
>>>>>>>> 379K org.apache.karaf.shell.console-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>>>>>>> 630K mina-core-2.0.3.jar (Already cut from minimal)
>>>>>>>> 213K org.apache.servicemix.bundles.asm-3.3_2.jar
>>>>>>>> 320K sshd-core-0.6.0.jar (Already cut from minimal)
>>>>>>>> 529K pax-logging-service-1.6.3.jar
>>>>>>>> 332K pax-url-wrap-1.3.5.jar
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Out of all the above jars I have to wonder why o.a.k.shell.dev
is
>>>>>>>> 2.3Mb in size, it's the second largest artifact in the kit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheesr,
>>>>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I noticed that also, but I didn't find time to investigate
why.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will take a look tonight to make a diff between distributions.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks !!
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2012 06:17 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The size of the karaf distribution has doubled between
2.x and 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>> It's now roughly 10 Mb.
>>>>>>>>>> Is that really worth the new features that are now
embedded by
>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>> I think at least the minimal distribution should
be much lighter ...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>> 
>>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>> 
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com






Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message