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
Corey Nolet 2013-05-20, 18:00
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 know
> if it
> >>> created a circular dependency. It appears that Corey found it doesn't
> have
> >>> one. All I did was put a dependency on accumulo-master and saw that
> when I
> >>> did so, Maven didn't pull accumulo-start for me. From my understanding,
> >>> that is the whole point of Maven, to handle the sub-dependencies of
> what
> >>> I'm trying to use and when I tried to use MiniAccumuloCluster, it
> didn't
> >>> pull all the right dependencies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I take that back- the start module does not have an explicit
> dependency
> >>> on
> >>> > accumulo-server. As long as the Main.class is used from the assembly
> >>> > artifact's classpath, everything should work fine.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > The only part that makes a circular dependency is including the
> >>> > > MiniAccumuloRunner in the Main.class. I'm not sure if that warrants
> >>> > needing
> >>> > > to rearchitect the runner, since it was made to give users the
> ability
> >>> to
> >>> > > interact with the Miniaccumulocluster as a single node accumulo.
> It was
> >>> > > also made to make the maven plugin much easier and standardize the
> >>> > > interface. Seems like two options are to remove the runner option
> from
> >>> > the
> >>> > > Main.class or move it to the start module.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Personally, I'd opt for moving the runner to the start module.
> >>> > > On May 20, 2013 8:12 AM, "David Medinets" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Combine this work with Dave Marion's work and put
> MiniAccumuloRunner
> >>> > into
> >>> > >> an add-on script?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > I think the ability to run "./bin/accumulo mini" may have
> introduced
> >>> > >> this
> >>> > >> > circular dependency. Perhaps the MiniAccumuloRunner should be
> moved
> >>> > >> > somewhere else.
> >>> > >> > On May 20, 2013 12:07 AM, "Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > > What do you mean there isn't a way to know this? Doesn't the
> >>> server
> >>> > >> > > POM express the dependency on start, explicitly?