I decided to try and experiment a bit with this idea. Just pushed a “split-spring” branch for folks to look at.
Basically, I did a few things: 1) Pulled bus/spring and configuration/spring into a new rt/spring bundle 2) Pulled bus/blueprint and configuration/blueprint (and related blueprint only schemas) into a new rt/aries-blueprint bundle 3) updated all the poms/features.xml to pull them (optional for cxf-spring and provided+optional for cxf-aries-blueprint) Cuts the core jar by about 105K. This does result in cxf-core not having any blueprint/aries deps at all. The other bundles do, but core doesn’t. Core still has a couple of spring deps though. There is the SpringBeanFactory invoker thing, the helper for dealing with AOP classes, and the new classpath scanning stuff. The SpringBeanFactory could be moved to cxf-spring if we change the @FactoryType annotation a bit so “Spring” is not one of the core types. Not a big deal. The AOP handling and classpath scanning stuff would be a bigger issue though. So, the question is, do we want to pursue this further for 3.0 or not? For spring users, they would need to add cxf-spring to the deps (minor) update and they would save about 40K due to lack of the aries stuff. For non-spring users, they could save 105K in space. We’d certainly need to go back and retest the samples and OSGi stuff which could be a big undertaking. Thoughts? Dan On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just about every jar that has any level of significantly configurable > functionality in CXF has some classes in it that depend on spring. jaxws, > jaxrs, http, ws-security, ws-policy, etc…. I certainly would NOT want to > just about double the number of jars/modules we have to deal with to pull > spring out of everything and into separate jars. > > That said, spring should be completely optional. If the spring jars are not > there, CXF should be able to detect that and work fine without it (minus all > the xml configuration and the JMS transport). > > With 3.0, it’s even a bit more complicated as API is gone and merged with > cxf-rt-core into just cxf-core. Would definitely need to play more to > figure out what spring stuff could even be pulled out there successfully. > > Dan > > > > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mandy Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am working on a new transport which will look very much like >> LocalTransport but use JNDI to register the destinations. The idea is that >> this will allow for war-war comms on a single thread with only a very >> minimal set of jars on the system classpath. >> >> I've successfully prototyped this and run the initial code past Andrei, I >> am now trying to productionise it so I can get this groups feedback as to >> whether it could be a useful addition to CXF. >> >> One thing which my solution requires is for the Spring dependencies in >> cxf-api to be moved into their own jar. This way, all I require on the >> shared classpath is the cut down cxf-api and not all the Spring libraries. >> >> I was wondering whether you would consider this repackaging as an option >> for a future release? There are only a very small amount of classes which >> would need to be moved, namely those in >> cxf/api/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/configuration/spring >> >> Many thanks >> >> Mandy >> <https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/cxf> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
