[forge-dev] shading!?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On Apr 18, 2011, at 18:57, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

> I don't want to force plugin-developers to create modules for every dependency that their plugin requires. That's why I've been avoiding OSGI or JBoss Modules.

But then you shouldn't be forcing them to shade either - you should just have one global classloader for the plugins then.

/max

> 
> ~Lincoln
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > What do you think about using Maven APIs to inspect the POM and fetch dependencies dynamically for each plugin, then isolate them in the plugin's classloader?
> 
> Why not just load them in to one classloader so you don't have collisions when there are mixed dependencies on Forge it self ?
> 
> How about shared data instances ? How does that work ?
> 
> ...as a side note...creating our own module system now - I feel that is a very bad direction :(
> Might as well adopt osgi plugin system if you want this kind of separation ?
> 
> /max
> 
> >
> > ~Lincoln
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 18, 2011, at 15:15, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> >
> > > "if there is a standard location for dependencies"
> > >
> > > What do you mean?
> >
> > Your "standard" for shading is that you put all classes into the plugin.jar.
> >
> > A "standard" for dependencies for a plugin.jar could be "next to the plugin.jar".
> >
> > Would still have the problem of overlapping jars but then at least its easier to see where the duplication is.
> >
> > /max
> >
> > >
> > > Thx,
> > > ~Lincoln
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was thinking we might already be able to do that using the existing pom.xml metadata that's stored in the artifact itself, or is that too tricky?
> > >
> > > if there is a standard location for dependencies then it should be fine - at least better than shading ;)
> > >
> > > /max
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Max Andersen <manderse at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > I was thinking Plugin jar having references to dependent jars via manifest.mf
> > > >
> > > > /max (sent from my phone)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/04/2011, at 00.39, "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Can you give an example of how you would bundle the JARs? (Just put them in /META-INF/dependencies/ ... ?) And would that not cause just as many class conflicts? If you shade/relocate then the deps *should be* completely isolated.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >> well, recommending just bundling jars would be a better approach than shading IMO.
> > > >>
> > > >> /max
> > > >>
> > > >> On Apr 11, 2011, at 16:00, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Yeah, shading is currently the recommended approach. Conflicts should be avoided by using relocations. I know this is... not a great method, but for now it's all we've got. Open to suggestions.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ~Lincoln
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Heya,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Lincoln, I just saw your commits to hibernattools plugin at (https://github.com/forge/plugin-hibernate-tools/commit/8b208b4a8e79dbb8a01d10d266ee81afd2cf7106)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Is shading of jars really the recommended approach for plugins in Forge ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > How are you going to share/avoid collisions of libraries across plugins if they need to bundle via shading ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > /max
> > > >> > http://about.me/maxandersen
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > forge-dev mailing list
> > > >> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > > >> > http://ocpsoft.com
> > > >> > http://scrumshark.com
> > > >> > "Keep it Simple"
> > > >>
> > > >> /max
> > > >> http://about.me/maxandersen
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Lincoln Baxter, III
> > > >> http://ocpsoft.com
> > > >> http://scrumshark.com
> > > >> "Keep it Simple"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > > > http://ocpsoft.com
> > > > http://scrumshark.com
> > > > "Keep it Simple"
> > >
> > > /max
> > > http://about.me/maxandersen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > > http://ocpsoft.com
> > > http://scrumshark.com
> > > "Keep it Simple"
> >
> > /max
> > http://about.me/maxandersen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > http://ocpsoft.com
> > http://scrumshark.com
> > "Keep it Simple"
> 
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen