4 ms·
I wouldn't worry, Maven Central is already that :) One of the most-touted goals is to break up the JRE libraries so you could, for example, deploy it to a head
by pebers 9y ago
I wouldn't worry, Maven Central is already that :)
One of the most-touted goals is to break up the JRE libraries so you could, for example, deploy it to a headless server without any of the GUI libraries. That certainly seems like a good direction, although there seem to be a bunch of other parts to it as well that I didn't know about (e.g. jlink).
My concern is more how they do it in a reasonably transparent way; it seems like a fairly different process to how it works currently, and having to implement essentially a second build process for a new version of the language seems tiresome for downstream tooling.
- needusername 9y ago> you could, for example, deploy it to a headless server without any of the GUI libraries That is quite theoretical. The issue is that the GUI libraries are in one huge module with everything from JavaBeans to sound. It is quite likely that you have an indirect dependency to JavaBeans so you'll likely end up having to deploy AWT, Swing, PLAF, sound and what not even if your application is headless.
- pebers 9y agoI've not been following it that closely; that was my understanding of the kind of thing they were aiming for, and which we'd like to reduce the footprint of our Java images. If the modules are too tightly coupled for it to make any difference that will be a little disappointing.
- needusername 9y agoWith footprint of your Java images you mean the size of your Docker images?
- pebers 9y agoYup, correct. It's not a high priority, just would be nice if it were reduced. Reducing their memory usage would be of a lot more benefit but it doesn't seem likely Jigsaw would be able to make a huge difference there.
- floatboth 9y agoOh, so it's kinda like what .NET is doing? https://www.nuget.org/profiles/dotnetframework https://www.nuget.org/profiles/dotnetframework