2009/11/22 Doug Bateman <d...@dougbateman.net>: >> It means much bigger jars. 3M jars when people complain about the >> size of the 500k Collections jar. I think a lot of that is not the >> size of the jar, but the ability to grok the fullness of the API - >> anyone who actually cares about jar size should be using tools like >> jarjar. Still, it's often been the main complaint and there are people >> who strongly dislike the 500k collections jar. > > Regarding jar file sizes mentioned earlier in the thread. I've never > really understood the tendency for people to complain about 300kb > jars. Or even a larger Java API. (The JRE for 1.6 is 80MB, which is > nothing compared to even a tiny 60GB disk.)
We use some commons projects in one of our commercial products that uses in-browser applets. Size is very important for some of our customers who have clients connecting in from geographically remote outstations over links with about as much bandwidth as a piece of wet string. We ship the workstations with the JRE installed so that's never a problem, but maintaining a connection long enough for the browser download and cache all the necessary jars almost always is. Note that I'm not opposed to a consolidated commons distribution, it's just that you should understand why size does matter for some applications. -- Mat Booth --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
