« Return to Thread: Maven integration and Orbeon dependency mess
Re: Maven integration and Orbeon dependency mess
by Erik Bruchez
::
Rate this Message:
> I am not sure if this has been brought up as topic before, so here
> goes:
>
> When looking at the libraries used, I see alot jars without
> versioning (sure
> you can investigate their manifest, but often those aren't correct,
> i.e.
> with luck you get the version).
Mmmh, I don't see a single JAR without proper versioning. I thought we
took great care to name the JARs to list the proper versions, contrary
to the original JAR files which in most cases don't have versions at
all (and to most open source projects I know of, which certainly don't
follow this practice).
In fact, our own JAR files (orbeon-*) are the exception, but then
their version if that of the WAR file.
> Some of the jars are alterered, that is,
> they contain patched files to support correct functionality (see
> saxon-8.8,
> they contain org.orbeon packages and zero saxon packages). And, some
> of
> these are renamed to reflect transitive dependencies which leads to
> more
> confusement.
>
> In my opinion, this is wrong. Upgrading becomes hard when you're not
> sure
> what version you are using.Say we have to patch Saxon. How would you name the JAR file?
The names we picked are a poor man's way of bundling JAR files
together. We do this for eXist, MSV, and xerces. Until we have an OSGi-
based infrastructure, this seemed like a not-so-bad mechanism.
What's the solution in your opinion? We are interested, because we
don't know of any good one.
> Another observation is that I find 'conflicting' solutions/
> dependencies,
> where all in all, the whole lot becomes bloated? The lib directory is
> (rounded up) 50Mb.
>
> For example:
> - fop vs itext
> - dom4j vs jdom
> - saxon vs xalan
>
> This leads to the next question, what is minimal required to run
> Orbeon?
> Meaning, what do I need to have for a clean and mean Orbeon (without
> all
> examples and their required libraries). Less is more?The other day I downloaded a trial of Adobe Photoshop Elements, the
"lightweight" Photoshop. It was 1.2 GB. In comparison, 50 MB doesn't
seem like a big issue, even if you deploy your app on your cell
phone ;-)
But you do raise a good question. I think we established recently that
JDOM was not needed at this moment. Xalan shouldn't be used either
anymore, unless you explicitly use the oxf:xalan processor. For the
rest, it depends on which functionality of Orbeon Forms you use. If
you don't use the oxf:xsl-fo transformer, the FOP JAR is likely to be
unneeded, etc.
-Erik
--
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/
--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the ops-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:ops-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
> goes:
>
> When looking at the libraries used, I see alot jars without
> versioning (sure
> you can investigate their manifest, but often those aren't correct,
> i.e.
> with luck you get the version).
Mmmh, I don't see a single JAR without proper versioning. I thought we
took great care to name the JARs to list the proper versions, contrary
to the original JAR files which in most cases don't have versions at
all (and to most open source projects I know of, which certainly don't
follow this practice).
In fact, our own JAR files (orbeon-*) are the exception, but then
their version if that of the WAR file.
> Some of the jars are alterered, that is,
> they contain patched files to support correct functionality (see
> saxon-8.8,
> they contain org.orbeon packages and zero saxon packages). And, some
> of
> these are renamed to reflect transitive dependencies which leads to
> more
> confusement.
>
> In my opinion, this is wrong. Upgrading becomes hard when you're not
> sure
> what version you are using.
The names we picked are a poor man's way of bundling JAR files
together. We do this for eXist, MSV, and xerces. Until we have an OSGi-
based infrastructure, this seemed like a not-so-bad mechanism.
What's the solution in your opinion? We are interested, because we
don't know of any good one.
> Another observation is that I find 'conflicting' solutions/
> dependencies,
> where all in all, the whole lot becomes bloated? The lib directory is
> (rounded up) 50Mb.
>
> For example:
> - fop vs itext
> - dom4j vs jdom
> - saxon vs xalan
>
> This leads to the next question, what is minimal required to run
> Orbeon?
> Meaning, what do I need to have for a clean and mean Orbeon (without
> all
> examples and their required libraries). Less is more?
"lightweight" Photoshop. It was 1.2 GB. In comparison, 50 MB doesn't
seem like a big issue, even if you deploy your app on your cell
phone ;-)
But you do raise a good question. I think we established recently that
JDOM was not needed at this moment. Xalan shouldn't be used either
anymore, unless you explicitly use the oxf:xalan processor. For the
rest, it depends on which functionality of Orbeon Forms you use. If
you don't use the oxf:xsl-fo transformer, the FOP JAR is likely to be
unneeded, etc.
-Erik
--
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/
--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the ops-users@... mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:ops-users-unsubscribe@...
For general help: mailto:sympa@...?subject=help
OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
« Return to Thread: Maven integration and Orbeon dependency mess
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |