[forge-dev] shading!?

Wed Apr 20 09:17:12 EDT 2011

+1

I agree with what you want to do Lincoln, but don't see how that can be made to happen without a module system.

Until then everything just will have to live in one big classpath.

/max

On Apr 20, 2011, at 14:24, Paul Bakker wrote:

> And that's why a module system is needed. If people can just add dependencies there will be duplicate (possibly multiple versions) dependencies. Each plugin should be in a separate classloader, and each dependency should be too so that a plugin never breaks other plugins or Forge itself. It would be a big limitation if plugins can't use libraries otherwise. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's right, but what I'm saying is that I don't want developers to be responsible for anything but *their code* -- if they have dependencies, those depenencies will be fetched for them (or somehow bundled in the JAR file itself, which is certainly possible, however not my preference.)
> 
> If you could write a plugin, reference dependencies in your POM, and have everything *Just Work* don't you think that would be a friendlier experience?
> 
> ~Lincoln
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Max Andersen <manderse at redhat.com> wrote:
> But if your plugin uses multiple jars it is not one jar. 
> 
> 
> /max (sent from my phone)
> 
> 
> On 18/04/2011, at 19.06, "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> That doesn't solve the problem of having to drop jar files onto the classpath in order for plugins to work. I want one JAR per plugin.
>> 
>> ~Lincoln
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> http://ocpsoft.com
>> http://scrumshark.com
>> "Keep it Simple"
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen