[jbosscache-dev] Jarring jars

[Galder Zamarreno]

I like the idea, but messaging did a similar thing with their 
jboss-messaging-client.jar and customers wondered how to upgrade things 
like log4j.jar.

Do we want to to provide both unpacked and packed jars? We need unpacked 
one for upgrading purpouses.

Another option instead of packing JARs would be to provide different 
library folders for different environments:
- Standalone Java 5
- Standalone Java 1.4
- AS 4.0.x Java 5
- AS 4.0.x Java 1.4
- AS 5.0 Java 5
- Websphere Java 1.4

This would have the benefit of telling customers what libraries they 
need for each situation providing good orientation to the customers. You 
could say that a 1.4.x release should not run in JBoss 5.0 and so, we do 
not provide a directory for "AS 5.0 Java 5"

Customers always gonna have to compare the libraries in target 
environments with the ones in the JBossCache distro in case anything 
else apart from JBossCache needs upgrading.

Thoughts?


Manik Surtani wrote:
> The list of jars JBoss Cache ships with is growing.  And this is, as you 
> can imagine, a PITA.
> 
> * Core libs - commons-logging, jgroups, concurrent (needed by JGroups < 
> 2.5), jboss-serialization, jboss-common-core
> * Pojocache libs - trove, jboss-aop, javassist, microcontainer jars (4 
> jars here!!)
> * JDK1.4-compat distro: 4 extra jars here
> * Optional jars: c3p0 (DB connection pooling for standalone use), bdbje 
> and jdbm for specific cache loaders.
> 
> Looking at how Bill's packaged libs up for embedded EJB, he's got an ant 
> task that jars up all the jars into a single file.
> 
> <jar jarfile="UberJar.jar">
>     <zipfileset file="jar1.jar" />
>     <zipfileset file="jar2.jar" />
>     ...
> </jar>
> 
> What do you think?  This way the JBoss Cache distro can ship with a 
> minimal number of jars:
> 
> * Core: jboss-cache.jar, jboss-cache-deps.jar
> * PojoCache: jboss-cache.jar, jboss-cache-deps.jar, pojo-cache-deps.jar
> * JDK1.4-compat: jboss-cache.jar, jboss-cache-deps-JDK14.jar
> * Optional jars
> 
> What do you guys think of this approach?  It may mean a replication of 
> jars (you may already have commons-logging or jboss-serialization in 
> your libs) but these jars are small and not a huge impact on size.  What 
> about wanting to swap out jars, e.g., JGroups?
> 
> Thoughts?
> -- 
> Manik Surtani
> 
> Lead, JBoss Cache
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> 
> Email: manik at jboss.org
> Telephone: +44 7786 702 706
> MSN: manik at surtani.org
> Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jbosscache-dev mailing list
> jbosscache-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev


-- 
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat