Quantcast

Binary plugins & run-app performance

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Binary plugins & run-app performance

alxndrsn
Bit of a speculative question here, but I was wondering if binary
plugins might be more efficient than zip plugins in dev because
there's no need to recompile source files when calling run-app.  Has
anyone tried this?

Related, would it be bad practice to distribute plugins in both zip
and jar formats?

Would there be any pitfalls doing this, e.g. differences between ZIP
and JAR plugins in behavioural terms?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Binary plugins & run-app performance

Graeme Rocher
Administrator
After compilation there is no difference in performance. The downside of JARs is you have to use the lowest possible version of Groovy to compile because if you compile the plugin with Groovy 2.1 it won't run in Groovy 1.8.x but if you compile it in Groovy 1.8.x it will run in 2.1.x

zipped plugins don't have this issue because the user compiles the sources


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Alex Anderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Bit of a speculative question here, but I was wondering if binary
plugins might be more efficient than zip plugins in dev because
there's no need to recompile source files when calling run-app.  Has
anyone tried this?

Related, would it be bad practice to distribute plugins in both zip
and jar formats?

Would there be any pitfalls doing this, e.g. differences between ZIP
and JAR plugins in behavioural terms?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--
Graeme Rocher
Grails Project Lead
SpringSource - A Division of VMware
http://www.springsource.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Binary plugins & run-app performance

alxndrsn
On 21 March 2013 13:49, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> After compilation there is no difference in performance. The downside of
> JARs is you have to use the lowest possible version of Groovy to compile
> because if you compile the plugin with Groovy 2.1 it won't run in Groovy
> 1.8.x but if you compile it in Groovy 1.8.x it will run in 2.1.x
That would certainly make distributing plugins in ZIP format a bit
more complicated.

> zipped plugins don't have this issue because the user compiles the sources
Interesting point.  Are plugins recompiled after a `grails-clean`?
I'm currently working on a project with about 50 files (according to
`grails stats`) but lots of plugin dependencies, and getting messages
at startup like:

    | Compiling 600 source files
    <long wait...>
    | Compiling 29 source files

    | Compiling 50 source files

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Loading...