On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:58 , Felix Meschberger wrote:
On 3/19/07, Peter Kriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course many of the problems are alleviated if the code is
included in the target JAR and not imported.
True. If we include the classes by using tools such as the great
BND this is
ok, still it might create duplicate class instances, which might or
might
not be a problem with respect to memory consumption and performance. I
personally like to share as much as possible (but to create as minimal
dependencies as possible, of course).
We should probably not call this code a "bundle" and leave it up to
the user to either wrap it in a bundle or just inline the needed code
(on the other hand, there's no harm done when we distribute it as a
utility bundle that exports its classes anyway).
Something that might be interesting here is to use Bnd together with
one of the code obfuscators. Not to obfuscate anything, but to rip
out all utility code that is not used. That way you can just inline
the stuff you actually use.
That could be a strategy to try with all utility bundles, not just
this one. It might save you a lot of code in big libraries of which
you use only a small portion.
Greetings, Marcel
