Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - dependencies within 1.5


Copy link to this message
-
Re: dependencies within 1.5
Keith Turner 2013-05-21, 16:36
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think we should move it in 1.5. The bug Eric found this morning, along
>

Thats ok w/ me.  I mostly want to avoid the deprecation route.

> with the laundry list of non-breakers, are enough for an RC5 to be cut.
> This should be pulled in. Having packages not align with modules causes
> nothing must frustration and confusion when trying to debug things.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it's worth asking because a few people expressed interest in
> > moving
> > > the mini cluster to it's own module. Do we want this for 1.5 or do we
> > wait
> > > until 1.6 and provide a deprecation strategy?
> > >
> >
> > I think we should move it in 1.5 XOR leave the package name the same in
> > 1.6, but move it to another module.  Either way avoids API changes for
> > users.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agreed, they also slow down the build.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Maybe...  or 'jar-with-dependencies' assembly, or something similar,
> > > >> might be useful.
> > > >> I'd probably argue for it to be in a de-activated profile, by
> default,
> > > >> though. Shaded jars can become problematic if people start using
> them
> > > >> as dependencies.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > This may be far out into space- but how would you guys feel about
> > > >> providing
> > > >> > a shaded jar in the pom for a new mini module? This may make it
> > easier
> > > >> for
> > > >> > users to run the mini accumulo cluster without hadoop/zookeeper
> > > >> installed.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> ACCUMULO-1436 for fixing "provided" dependencies.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Christopher <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > You're right. I'm not sure why our internal dependencies would
> be
> > > >> >> > marked as provided... except maybe I made that mistake to try
> to
> > > deal
> > > >> >> > with the mess of the 'copy-dependencies' stuff. That should be
> > > fixed.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Jim, accumulo-start is a provided dependency for all of the
> > other
> > > >> >> versions.
> > > >> >> >> So when you list accumulo-server as a dependency, it does not
> > pull
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> >> provided dependencies.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> This is sort of what I was getting at before, Chris. The
> > provided
> > > >> jars
> > > >> >> >> don't get pulled in/referenced when they are marked as
> provided.
> > > For
> > > >> >> >> external dependencies, that totally makes sense. But I don't
> > know
> > > >> why we
> > > >> >> >> need to mark other accumulo parts as provided. I find it
> > difficult
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> >> believe that that is a standard maven configuration. It is
> > > extremely
> > > >> >> >> painful for downstream clients.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jim Klucar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>> The question mark was in my statement because I didn't
> actually
> > > >