4 ms·

Awesome. I really like keeping two separate GUI toolkits in the docker container for my webservice. I don't print, like ever, but it's good to know i could hook

by jfoutz 10y ago

Awesome. I really like keeping two separate GUI toolkits in the docker container for my webservice. I don't print, like ever, but it's good to know i could hook up a lineprinter and do hard logs of every web request. Oh, and the CORBA and RMI registires. So comforting to know i have those options if i need them.

tetha 10y ago
On the other hand, if porting our app to Java9+Jigsaw requires us to wait a year (because breakage with maven), costs like half a year to a year (I know our codebase), while upgrading our application servers (because classloading) and possibly re-doing a lot of the build process at the same time... I'll have to support Java8 for just about forever. That upgrade wouldn't happen, or it would be really nasty. I'll rather tolerate a standard library with a lot of bollocks in there and provide security around it.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  aww shucks. Yeah, i understand. Backwards compatibility is hard, and java has been pretty good (there have, of course, been a few rough spots). I'm surprised there's no answer at all for maven. I'd assumed there was some sort of import * to just grab everything, like we're all doing right now. Going and adding a single line to a few hundred build.xmls doesn't sound excessive. shrug
- melling 10y ago
  People have been waiting a decade now? I remember listening about Jigsaw on the Java Posse back in 2009: http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_interview http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_inter... https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294 https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294
  - tetha 10y ago
    I didn't mean wait for Jigsaw. I meant: Assume jigsaw breaks maven, i.e. it's not compatible and there's no easy ugly workaround without runtime errors. That'd mean, my place - and pretty much every place - has to wait at least a year or more, until all dependencies are ported to jigsaw. If all dependencies get ported. This sounds way too similar to the whole Python2/Python3 mess to me to be a good idea.
fauigerzigerk 10y ago
It would be comforting if only these classes weren't clogging my hardrive with millions of useless bytes. Some of these libraries take more disk space than the frontpage of a news website in the browser cache! And I feel obliged to use them sometimes lest they turn into malware out of sheer boredom.
lvh 10y ago
Jigsaw is hardly the only way we can get a smaller rt.jar for containers. We already have minifiers, and they already know about rt.jar explicitly (not as a special case). (Plus, of course, rt.jar isn't so bad if you can share it in a layer :))
needusername 10y ago
> I really like keeping two separate GUI toolkits in the docker container for my webservice. Except Jigsaw does nothing to fix this. Your webservice framework depends on jaxb which depends on activation which depends on JavaBeans (everything depends on JavaBeans). Turns out JavaBeans is in the same module as these GUI toolkits.
- smarx007 10y ago
  With the GUI toolkits its the other way around. And the beans you meant are "visual beans" (`java.awt.Component`).

by jfoutz 10y ago

tetha 10y ago

On the other hand, if porting our app to Java9+Jigsaw requires us to wait a year (because breakage with maven), costs like half a year to a year (I know our codebase), while upgrading our application servers (because classloading) and possibly re-doing a lot of the build process at the same time... I'll have to support Java8 for just about forever. That upgrade wouldn't happen, or it would be really nasty. I'll rather tolerate a standard library with a lot of bollocks in there and provide security around it.

jfoutz 10y ago
aww shucks. Yeah, i understand. Backwards compatibility is hard, and java has been pretty good (there have, of course, been a few rough spots). I'm surprised there's no answer at all for maven. I'd assumed there was some sort of import * to just grab everything, like we're all doing right now. Going and adding a single line to a few hundred build.xmls doesn't sound excessive. shrug
melling 10y ago
People have been waiting a decade now? I remember listening about Jigsaw on the Java Posse back in 2009: http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_interview http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_inter... https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294 https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294
- tetha 10y ago
  I didn't mean wait for Jigsaw. I meant: Assume jigsaw breaks maven, i.e. it's not compatible and there's no easy ugly workaround without runtime errors. That'd mean, my place - and pretty much every place - has to wait at least a year or more, until all dependencies are ported to jigsaw. If all dependencies get ported. This sounds way too similar to the whole Python2/Python3 mess to me to be a good idea.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago

It would be comforting if only these classes weren't clogging my hardrive with millions of useless bytes. Some of these libraries take more disk space than the frontpage of a news website in the browser cache! And I feel obliged to use them sometimes lest they turn into malware out of sheer boredom.

lvh 10y ago

Jigsaw is hardly the only way we can get a smaller rt.jar for containers. We already have minifiers, and they already know about rt.jar explicitly (not as a special case). (Plus, of course, rt.jar isn't so bad if you can share it in a layer :))

needusername 10y ago

> I really like keeping two separate GUI toolkits in the docker container for my webservice. Except Jigsaw does nothing to fix this. Your webservice framework depends on jaxb which depends on activation which depends on JavaBeans (everything depends on JavaBeans). Turns out JavaBeans is in the same module as these GUI toolkits.

smarx007 10y ago
With the GUI toolkits its the other way around. And the beans you meant are "visual beans" (`java.awt.Component`).