Skip to main content

Source vs. Binary - Pros & Cons?

1 reply [Last post]
Joined: 2007-10-16

In hosting a Wonderland server, is there an advantage in building the source or does the binary (Wonderland.jar) provide the same functionality? Building the source is so much more labor/time intensive (install sun jdk, svn, ant, download wonderland source, download wonderland-modules source, ant build, ant run-server) I'm wondering what the benefits are of going through all this.

Also, what are the implications for a) authentication and b) module deployment for the source vs. binary choice?

Thanks much!


Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joined: 2004-07-13

Source and binary should be identical from a feature standpoint. In fact, the reason the source takes so long to build is that it creates a binary Wonderland.jar file, and then executes the binary. This guarantees that the source and binary versions work the same.

So why run from source? Mostly because it is faster to update if you are trying to keep up with the trunk of Wonderland. If you don't need the latest and greatest updates every day, binary is a good way to go. Note that if you are developing modules, you will want to get the source corresponding to the binary version you use, even if you run from the Wonderland binary.

As far as modules go, when you run from a binary, you use the web UI to manage and deploy modules. With a binary, you can control which modules are included in the binary, so there is no need to manage them via the web UI. Modules are generally persisted as long as the binary stays the same, so as long as you don't update the binary too often, modules should work fine. Since authentication is a module, this holds for authentication as well.