This is the closest we have today.
I think it relies on outdated snapshots, so it probably doesn't work
anymore on clean machines.
Combine (or replace) it with a package manager.
Make sure we can bootstrap a (proper) dependency manager.
And you should end up with a distro which is measured in KB, not MB.
$ java -jar jboss-reloaded.jar -Dorg=org.jboss.resteasy
You'll probably whine a boot on the first boottime, but alas... ;-)
On 04/01/2010 11:32 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
BTW, I got this idea when I was doing testing with RESTEasy against
trunk. My thought was, "wouldn't it be cool if AS just loaded RESTEasy
from my local maven repository so that I didn't have to manually copy to
or rebuild the AS distribution?" I guess what I'm saying is that it
would help make us more productive too.
Also, from a product standpoint, it would be very easy for us to define
and ship different profiles. A profile would be so small, it could
easily be archived and distributed through a maven repository. Could
easily be sent across the wire for support engineers to look at, etc.
Bill Burke wrote:
> instead of the way our JBoss AS distribution is structure now, why not
> introduce the idea of maven-based booting and deployment?
> Core components (specifically deployers, sars, really anything in the
> JBoss domain) of a profile (default, minimal, all, etc.) would only
> include bean.xml and other configuration files. Within beans.xml or a
> different file, each deployment unit would specify its dependencies,
> either through<dependency> elements, or a list of maven artifacts, i.e.
> That way our distribution can be either very very tiny, just a zip of
> text files that point to our maven repository. Or, very optimized, we
> ship a maven repository with the distribution that shared between the
> different profiles.
> This could get very interesting over time. Deployment units could
> delegate to the base AS for versioning, much like maven modules delegate
> to a parent pom for dependency versions. We could automatically create
> scoped deployments or issue warnings if base AS and the deployment unit
> require different library versions, etc.
> Just a thought...