sure thing! On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:45 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > To be clear, the documentation already exists [1]. It just needs to be > updated with the aforementioned details when the uber jars are removed. > > > Justin > > [1] > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/latest/client-classpath.html > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 3:39 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > sure, of course we need to update the docs in relation to anything > > these removed jars. What I meant was we need to document the jars that > > are required independently of removing the jars.. if someone wants to > > use the client jars the client dependency should be documented anyway. > > that's what I meant > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 3:25 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "independent issue." If we remove the uber > > > jars then the docs have to be updated. The two things are directly > > related, > > > right? > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Clebert Suconic < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think that’s an independent issue. The doc would need to be updated > > > > anyways. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:40 PM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, the documentation needs to be clear. This is a usability issue. > > > > > > > > > > Even if you did a "mvn dependency:list" you'd get a list including > > > > optional > > > > > and test dependencies. Also, there would be potentially unnecessary > > > > > dependencies (e.g. netty-transport-native-kqueue even if you aren't > > on a > > > > > Mac). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 1:30 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > >
-- Clebert Suconic
