This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
1. Go to New Web Project wizard 2. Check "Use dedicated folder for storing libraries" 3. On the next panel, choose GF v3 as the target server and check "Use dedicated library folder for server JAR files" 4. Complete the wizard The wizard creates the "GlassFish_v3" library folder, which is >20 MB in size. The biggest culprits are webservices-osgi.jar, jaxb-osgi.jar and jsf-impl.jar. Are these jars really needed for compiling user code? If they are, could they be split up so only the API part is included, not the implementation part? (This may be a request for GlassFish itself, rather than the plugin.)
I just saw a suggestion in a private e-mail to use modules/endorsed/jaxb-api-osgi.jar and modules/endorsed/webservices-api-osgi.jar, which are much smaller.
Integrated into 'main-golden', will be available in build *200907080200* on http://bits.netbeans.org/dev/nightly/ (upload may still be in progress) Changeset: http://hg.netbeans.org/main-golden/rev/a835aeeef832 User: Vince Kraemer <vkraemer@netbeans.org> Log: #166836: prefer smaller api jars if they exist
I tried the behavior in the latest build, and strangely, webservices-osgi.jar and jaxb-osgi.jar are still added, in addition to the smaller API-only jars. Next, other non-API jars that are included in the v3 platform right now are jsf-impl.jar and jstl-impl.jar. While these are not needed for compiling user code, they need to be on the classpath: I just discussed with Marek Fukala (cc'ed) that they contain tld files, and the JSP editor needs to see these jars on classpath in order to provide code completion and other features for the tag libraries. So I would leave these two jar files in.
I cannot reproduce the behavior that Petr talks about in http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=166836#desc4 I am closing this issue as fixed. Open a new issue with steps to reproduce if you run into other problems with the library content.
I can still reproduce the subissue I reported, so I filed a new issue 168927. Could this be Mac-specific or something?