Even then, I would rather add a section with documentation than an Uber jar that's not tested.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:22 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <jbert...@apache.org> 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > 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 -- Clebert Suconic
