the pom on artemis-core-client, artemis-jms-client, and artemis-jakarta-client... They will include all the needed dependencies, right?
what is the issue? to have a clear text on the docs? On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > > The original impetus for the uber jar was ARTEMIS-1129. The issue there was > that it wasn't clear what jars were needed on the client. If we remove the > uber jars then we need to update the documentation to make crystal clear > what jars are needed on the client, including details about what jars may > be optional depending on which functionality the client uses. > > I'm not necessarily against it, but removing the uber jar is probably going > to sting for a handful of users. Anything we can do to alleviate that will > help. Maybe we could generate a text file in lib/client instead of the uber > jars to help users who expect them to be there. The text could list the > jars required for the client's classpath. > > > Justin > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1129 > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:40 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We currently deploy these following shaded uber jars with ActiveMQ Artemis. > > > > artemis-jms-client-all > > artemis-core-client-all > > artemis-jakarta-client-all > > > > We are in the process of removing jboss-logging, and replacing it by > > SLF4j /LOG4J on a separate branch, and we will probably make a switch > > on the branch as 3.0. > > > > I never really liked these shaded jars as part of the distribution. I > > would be inclined to remove them on a switch for 3.0 anyways, and now > > we are having a build issue, > > as they will fail (on a second build) shading apache-commons-logging: > > > > ERROR] Failed to execute goal > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-shade-plugin:3.3.0:shade (default) on > > project artemis-core-client-all: Error creating shaded jar: duplicate > > entry: META-INF/services/org.apache.activemq.artemis.shaded.org > > .apache.commons.logging.LogFactory > > -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the > > errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using > > the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more > > information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the > > following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoExecutionException > > [ERROR] [ERROR] After correcting the problems, you can resume the > > build with the command [ERROR] mvn <args> -rf > > :artemis-core-client-all > > > > > > > > > > Also, they add about 20MB to our distribution, and more 10MB for the > > core-client-all that's not on the distro but it is on maven repo. > > > > This is a common trend with other projects. Netty stopped producing a > > netty-all and is offering a pom. Jetty did the same thing.. and There > > are a lot of issues introduced by an "all client". > > > > > > So, even though we could fix the build, these JARs are never tested as > > part of the testsuite or anything.... It's like playing with the > > odds... and they are huge on the distribution as they will all > > include copies of Netty. > > > > > > I would really like to remove these JARs and I think it would be a > > great improvement to do so. > > > > These POMS are already defining all the dependencies anyway. Any user > > who wants to have a shaded jar would just be able to shade it > > themselves as part of their project. > > > > > > If anyone have a strong feeling about keeping them we would need: > > > > - your opinion (why we keep them on 3.0) > > - Help fixing the build on new-logging > > - Help with adding smoke tests for these jars. > > > > > > anyone? > > > > -- Clebert Suconic
