Hi, I would also vote for option 2: The 3MB are not a problem since we do not have the requirement to minimize our package size. I would guess that If we want to start to minimize dependencies, there would be much more places in Stanbol to look at. That's why I would prefer to produce less bundles and accept the plus in size.
- Fabian 2011/2/9 Olivier Grisel <[email protected]>: > 2011/2/9 Rupert Westenthaler <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Both are alternative yard providers if I understand correctly. You can >>> either run solr using an external server or use the solr classes >>> inside the stanbol JVM. >>> >> In principle correct. However the SolrProvider is no Yard >> implementation. There is only a singe SolrYard implementation that >> requires a org.apache.solr.client.solrj.SolrServer instance. The >> SolrProvider is just responsible of providing this SolrServer >> instance. >>> >>> So we could have entityhub/yard/providers with solr and embeddedsolr >>> as subfolders instead. But I would rather have them all grouped >>> together in the same OSGi bundle unless Rupert has a technical reason >>> to avoid this. >> >> The embeddedSolrServer requires all the Solr and Lucene dependencies >> but Users that do not use an embedded Solr server do not need all this >> stuff (~3MB jar's). >> >> I would have preferred to keep all the stuff needed to use remote >> SolrServer within the SolrYard bundle and only move the >> EmbeddedSolrServer stuff to an own bundle, but that was not possible >> because of an cyclic build dependency (The unit tests of the SolrYard >> use an EmbeddedSolrServer and the EmbeddedSolrServer does implement >> the SolrProvider interface and would therefore has an dependency to >> the SolrYard bundle). >> >> So in my opinion there are only two possibilities: >> (1) creating three bundles (SolrYard, SolrProvider (interface >> definition and implementaion for remote SolrServer) and >> EmbeddedSolrProvider) >> (2) move everything into the SolrYard bundle (and add the ~3MB Solr >> and Lucene dependencies to it). > > I would rather vote for option 2: 3MB is small in comparison of the > size of a pre-filled yard index anyway that the user will have to > download anyway to make use of such an yard in practice. > > -- > Olivier > http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel > -- Fabian
