[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ptp-dev] ptp-dev Digest, Vol 68, Issue 3
|
Actually, I think a combination of dependency extraction and compression would be worth trying.
Greg
On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Dieter wrote:
>> I think my preference would be to try the compression option first. Do you know if this is able to reduce the jar to a reasonable size?
>
> I guess you are talking about the pack200 option I suggested earlier?:
>
>> Alternatively I would suggest using a 'brute-force' approach using
>> pack200 + Gzip. I regularly use a combination of dependency jar
>> extraction, obfuscation and pack200 in my build processes while the
>> latter has the biggest impact in jar size.
>>
>> I think pack200 is a JSR that came with Java5. Since I used a lot of
>> Generics when writing the proxy every client of our proxy should be
>> Java5 or later. From experience a 30MB jar file containing only .class
>> files should end up between 4-8 MB in size if you use pack200+Gzip
>> correctly. The rt.jar file that ships with every JRE comes pack200
>> compressed in the installer with a compressed size of around 10MB I
>> think.
>
> I will use this jar http://129.206.117.40:2222/test/test.jar for
> compression and report back. Only *.class files are very well
> compressed with pack200. Other files, like images and *.dll, are not
> so well compressed. I will probably remove not needed files like
> (*.dll) before compression.
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
