Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I'm here to see how small you can get a GlassFish core than can still
> run Rails with JRuby. Here's the challenge for you:
>
> - JRuby itself (compressed), including Ruby's standard library, is about
> 4-5MB.
> - Rails libraries (compressed) are about 1.5-1.8MB
> - Mongrel (compressed, fast Ruby/Java HTTP server) is 108k
>
> So minus GlassFish, a typical JRuby on Rails developer could get a
> server up in under 7MB, all requirements included. If they already have
> JRuby, under 2MB.
The lowest would consist of only Grizzly + hk2 (hk2 not counted here):
> 4288 -rw-rw-r-- 1 ja120114 ja120114 4375435 May 30 15:12 jruby-on-grizzly-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
which contains
> [ja120114_at_localhost jruby]$ unzip -l jruby-on-grizzly-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> Archive: jruby-on-grizzly-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> Length Date Time Name
> -------- ---- ---- ----
> 0 05-30-07 15:12 META-INF/
> 71 05-30-07 15:12 META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
> 0 05-30-07 15:12 jruby-on-grizzly/
> 18413 05-30-07 15:12 jruby-on-grizzly/jruby-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 0 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/
> 26896 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/logging-api-1.0.4.jar
> 105474 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/modeler-1.1.jar
> 122728 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/framework-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 374272 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/http-utils-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 340082 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/http-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 15191 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/rcm-1.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
> 3404839 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/jruby-complete-1.0RC2.jar
> 34832 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/asm-2.2.3.jar
> 245992 05-30-07 14:42 jruby-on-grizzly/lib/backport-util-concurrent-2.0_01_pd.jar
> -------- -------
> 4688790 14 files
I assume at one point of the time you will remove
backport-util-concurrent-2.0_01_pd.jar? the http-utils can be reduced
and rcm be removed to reduce the size.
The v3 runtime shouldn't be that big but I suspect we will not be able
to be lower than the current jruby on Grizzly.
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> I'd love to see a GlassFish deployment option that's comparable and
> attractive to this.
>
> - Charlie