[forge-dev] shading!?

Tue Apr 19 12:14:16 EDT 2011

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>
> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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>http://about.me/maxandersen
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > _______________________________________________
>> > > > >> > forge-dev mailing list
>> > > > >> > <forge-dev at lists.jboss.org>forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > > > >> > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > --
>> > > > >> > Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > > > >> > <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > > > >> > <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > > > >> > "Keep it Simple"
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> /max
>> > > > >> <http://about.me/maxandersen>http://about.me/maxandersen
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > > > >> <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > > > >> <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > > > >> "Keep it Simple"
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > > > > <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > > > > <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > > > > "Keep it Simple"
>> > > >
>> > > > /max
>> > > > <http://about.me/maxandersen>http://about.me/maxandersen
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > > > <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > > > <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > > > "Keep it Simple"
>> > >
>> > > /max
>> > > <http://about.me/maxandersen>http://about.me/maxandersen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > > <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > > <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > > "Keep it Simple"
>> >
>> > /max
>> > <http://about.me/maxandersen>http://about.me/maxandersen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lincoln Baxter, III
>> > <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
>> > <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
>> > "Keep it Simple"
>>
>> /max
>>  <http://about.me/maxandersen>http://about.me/maxandersen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> <http://ocpsoft.com>http://ocpsoft.com
> <http://scrumshark.com>http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
>
>

-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20110419/f7069355/attachment.html 