[forge-dev] shading!?

Wed Apr 20 09:33:51 EDT 2011

Yeah, I'm afraid that's right. I think the module system integration should
get very high priority before we reach a 1.0 version. It's something that
affects the whole way the core is built up, and it will be very difficult to
change that later on.

Paul

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <
max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20110420/595828ff/attachment-0001.html 