On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:55:38PM +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 13:58, David Blevins wrote: > > But we can ensure that in an embedded environment with limited > > space, they get more of it than we do.
> Even systems 10 years old typically have 6GByte hard drives, so I can't > see why the difference between a 300Kbyte collections jar and an > 800Kbyte collections jar would worry the end user overly. I think we have differing opinions of embedded environments. > And of course the target system first needs to install the JDK > containing many many megabytes worth of library files that are not going > to be used (eg swing). As you mention below, embedded environments typcially use j2me. > Could you please explain why the disk-space taken by commons libraries > is so important to the Geronimo project? Are you intending to run > Geronimo on mobile phones using j2me (which has carefully trimmed > libraries for this reason)? The goal is to not rule out the possibility. We'd like to have a kernel that can be stripped down to just a few k, then pieces can be added with what space remains. I know it sounds strange as most people associate J2EE with things like WSAD5 which has a 700mb footprint, but there are some neat things for J2EE in the embedded world. One of the OpenEJB developers, for example, got it to run on a cell phone by trimming out xerces, castor, and a few other jars. He started work on a mobile J2EE platform some time afterwards (ichilli.sourceforge.net). The commons libraries are great, I don't think that's ever been in question. We're just a little obsessed with having a kernel that is as minimal as possible. We even purged a few hundred classes of our own code a while back and are still looking for more things of our own to hack off. So this isn't any kind of attack on commons. No offense is intented. -David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
