Hey! I'm currently trying to solve a tricky class loading issue connected to Spring, CDI and Uber Jars. Here's the scenario: Remote Uber Jar contains CDI module Our Hot Rod client use newer version of JBoss Logging which is present in Wildfly/EAP modules However EAP and Wildfly will load (and make available for deployment) their own version of JBoss Logging [1] The easiest fix for this is to relocate JBoss Logging package in Uber Jar Spring module requires some classes from Infinispan Common and they in turn need BasicLogger from JBoss Logging If we relocate JBoss Logging and will try to use Uber Jar with Spring - we will end up with classloading issue [2] So it seems the best approach is to make Spring depend on Uber Jars instead of "small ones". Of course, users who use small jars will probably be affected by this change (they would have to either accept using Uber Jars or exclude them in their poms and add dependencies manually). Is anyone against this solution? JIRA tracking ticket: [3]. Thanks Sebastian [1] Scenario with Weld enabled WAR https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/AS7/Implicit+module+dependencies+fo... [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266831#c7 [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6132 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

I think the plan is to cover more integration tests (if not all) with Uber Jars - right Martin? WRT the logger - yes you are absolutely correct and that's why logger implementations are excluded from Uber Jars (Ubers contain only APIs - like SLF4J-API or LOG4J-API). I think the uber jar vs small jar is more about what configurations are preferred. Note that you can always (even now) exclude all dependencies from Spring Remote and add Remote Uber Jar manually. Switching Spring Remote module to Uber Jars will only change the default behavior (we will still be able to exclude dependencies and add small jars if you prefer them). If we proceed with this change - of course I will document this excluding part in the docs (currently it is not written anywhere and it is not-so-obvious solution). On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: > The Uber Jars will always be more problematic than the "small ones" - > as the testsuite doesn't cover them at the same level, if at all - so > I don't think it would be wise to start having components to depend on > them, especially as this looks like it might become viral: what about > other component X that people will want to use with Spring? > > Also when you're deploying on WildFly you probably want to use the > Logger from the application server as it's the one being managed. So > the solution would be wither never use Uber Jars when deploying on the > container, or remove JBoss Logger from the Uber Jars. > > Shall I state once more that the whole Uber Jars affair seems a really > bad idea to me? > > Thanks, > Sanne > > > > On 1 February 2016 at 11:31, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > Hey! > > > > I'm currently trying to solve a tricky class loading issue connected to > > Spring, CDI and Uber Jars. Here's the scenario: > > > > Remote Uber Jar contains CDI module > > Our Hot Rod client use newer version of JBoss Logging which is present > in > > Wildfly/EAP modules > > However EAP and Wildfly will load (and make available for deployment) > their > > own version of JBoss Logging [1] > > > > The easiest fix for this is to relocate JBoss Logging package in Uber > Jar > > > > Spring module requires some classes from Infinispan Common and they in > turn > > need BasicLogger from JBoss Logging > > > > If we relocate JBoss Logging and will try to use Uber Jar with Spring - > we > > will end up with classloading issue [2] > > > > So it seems the best approach is to make Spring depend on Uber Jars > instead > > of "small ones". Of course, users who use small jars will probably be > > affected by this change (they would have to either accept using Uber > Jars or > > exclude them in their poms and add dependencies manually). > > > > Is anyone against this solution? JIRA tracking ticket: [3]. > > > > Thanks > > Sebastian > > > > [1] Scenario with Weld enabled WAR > > > https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/AS7/Implicit+module+dependencies+fo... > > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266831#c7 > > [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6132 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infinispan-dev mailing list > > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >

The Uber Jars will always be more problematic than the "small ones" - as the testsuite doesn't cover them at the same level, if at all - so I don't think it would be wise to start having components to depend on them, especially as this looks like it might become viral: what about other component X that people will want to use with Spring? Also when you're deploying on WildFly you probably want to use the Logger from the application server as it's the one being managed. So the solution would be wither never use Uber Jars when deploying on the container, or remove JBoss Logger from the Uber Jars. Shall I state once more that the whole Uber Jars affair seems a really bad idea to me?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: > On 1 February 2016 at 14:12, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; > wrote: > > The Uber Jars will always be more problematic than the "small ones" - > > as the testsuite doesn't cover them at the same level, if at all - so > > I don't think it would be wise to start having components to depend on > > them, especially as this looks like it might become viral: what about > > other component X that people will want to use with Spring? > > > > Also when you're deploying on WildFly you probably want to use the > > Logger from the application server as it's the one being managed. So > > the solution would be wither never use Uber Jars when deploying on the > > container, or remove JBoss Logger from the Uber Jars. > > > > Shall I state once more that the whole Uber Jars affair seems a really > > bad idea to me? > > +1 to myself here :) as we're witnessing again reports of issues with > them. > > Unless someone has a solid explanation about why they are needed, > could we start making plans for their deprecation? > > As far as I remember they were introduced to "reduce the number of > dependencies" but this isn't the right way. > +1 Having an uber jar is mostly a convenience for those not using a proper dependency management system or doing quick prototypes, but as soon as we start having several uber jars, putting them inside osgi bundles and creating jboss modules with them, they become really alternate jars and a maintenance burden for very little benefit. Gustavo > > Thanks, > Sanne > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Implemented: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/4039 Thanks Sebastian On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > During our talk on IRC Tristan proposed to mark Spring dependencies as > provided. Another similar approach would be to make them optional. > > I think both approaches are even better than making Spring module depend > on Uber Jars. However there is a price to pay - each user will probably > have to declare in his pom what dependencies he'd like to use (uber or > small jars). > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> I think the plan is to cover more integration tests (if not all) with >> Uber Jars - right Martin? >> >> WRT the logger - yes you are absolutely correct and that's why logger >> implementations are excluded from Uber Jars (Ubers contain only APIs - like >> SLF4J-API or LOG4J-API). >> >> I think the uber jar vs small jar is more about what configurations are >> preferred. Note that you can always (even now) exclude all dependencies >> from Spring Remote and add Remote Uber Jar manually. Switching Spring >> Remote module to Uber Jars will only change the default behavior (we will >> still be able to exclude dependencies and add small jars if you prefer >> them). >> If we proceed with this change - of course I will document this >> excluding part in the docs (currently it is not written anywhere and it is >> not-so-obvious solution). >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> The Uber Jars will always be more problematic than the "small ones" - >>> as the testsuite doesn't cover them at the same level, if at all - so >>> I don't think it would be wise to start having components to depend on >>> them, especially as this looks like it might become viral: what about >>> other component X that people will want to use with Spring? >>> >>> Also when you're deploying on WildFly you probably want to use the >>> Logger from the application server as it's the one being managed. So >>> the solution would be wither never use Uber Jars when deploying on the >>> container, or remove JBoss Logger from the Uber Jars. >>> >>> Shall I state once more that the whole Uber Jars affair seems a really >>> bad idea to me? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sanne >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 February 2016 at 11:31, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> > Hey! >>> > >>> > I'm currently trying to solve a tricky class loading issue connected >>> to >>> > Spring, CDI and Uber Jars. Here's the scenario: >>> > >>> > Remote Uber Jar contains CDI module >>> > Our Hot Rod client use newer version of JBoss Logging which is >>> present in >>> > Wildfly/EAP modules >>> > However EAP and Wildfly will load (and make available for deployment) >>> their >>> > own version of JBoss Logging [1] >>> > >>> > The easiest fix for this is to relocate JBoss Logging package in Uber >>> Jar >>> > >>> > Spring module requires some classes from Infinispan Common and they >>> in turn >>> > need BasicLogger from JBoss Logging >>> > >>> > If we relocate JBoss Logging and will try to use Uber Jar with Spring >>> - we >>> > will end up with classloading issue [2] >>> > >>> > So it seems the best approach is to make Spring depend on Uber Jars >>> instead >>> > of "small ones". Of course, users who use small jars will probably be >>> > affected by this change (they would have to either accept using Uber >>> Jars or >>> > exclude them in their poms and add dependencies manually). >>> > >>> > Is anyone against this solution? JIRA tracking ticket: [3]. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Sebastian >>> > >>> > [1] Scenario with Weld enabled WAR >>> > https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/AS7/Implicit+module+ >>> dependencies+for+deployments >>> > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266831#c7 >>> > [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6132 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > infinispan-dev mailing list >>> > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >> >> >