accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Hadoop 2 compatibility issues - tangent
Date Wed, 15 May 2013 16:33:19 GMT
No problem. FYI, this is essentially what we do to drop the
non-provided deps into lib/ in the first place.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> Awesome Chris, thanks. I didn't know where to begin looking for that one.
>
> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> On May 14, 2013 7:11 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> With the right configuration, you could use the copy-dependencies goal
>> of the maven-dependency-plugin to gather your dependencies to one
>> place.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:14 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On that note, I was wondering if there were any suggestions for how to
>> deal
>> > with the laundry list of provided dependencies that Accumulo core has?
>> > Writing packages against it is a bit ugly if not using the accumulo
>> script
>> > to start. Are there any maven utilities to automatically dissect provided
>> > dependencies and make them included.
>> >
>> > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
>> > On May 14, 2013 6:09 PM, "Keith Turner" <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One note about option 4.  When using 1.4 users have to include hadoop
>> core
>> >> as a dependency in their pom. This must be done because the 1.4 Accumulo
>> >> pom marks hadoop-core as provided.  So maybe option 4 is ok if the deps
>> in
>> >> the profile are provided?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > So, I've run into a problem with ACCUMULO-1402 that requires a larger
>> >> > discussion about how Accumulo 1.5.0 should support Hadoop2.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is basically that profiles should not contain
>> >> > dependencies, because profiles don't get activated transitively. A
>> >> > slide deck by the Maven developers point this out as a bad practice...
>> >> > yet it's a practice we rely on for our current implementation of
>> >> > Hadoop2 support
>> >> > (http://www.slideshare.net/aheritier/geneva-jug-30th-march-2010-maven
>> >> > slide 80).
>> >> >
>> >> > What this means is that even if we go through the work of publishing
>> >> > binary artifacts compiled against Hadoop2, neither our Hadoop1
>> >> > binaries or our Hadoop2 binaries will be able to transitively resolve
>> >> > any dependencies defined in profiles. This has significant
>> >> > implications to user code that depends on Accumulo Maven artifacts.
>> >> > Every user will essentially have to explicitly add Hadoop dependencies
>> >> > for every Accumulo artifact that has dependencies on Hadoop, either
>> >> > because we directly or transitively depend on Hadoop (they'll have
to
>> >> > peek into the profiles in our POMs and copy/paste the profile into
>> >> > their project). This becomes more complicated when we consider how
>> >> > users will try to use things like Instamo.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are workarounds, but none of them are really pleasant.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. The best way to support both major Hadoop APIs is to have separate
>> >> > modules with separate dependencies directly in the POM. This is a fair
>> >> > amount of work, and in my opinion, would be too disruptive for 1.5.0.
>> >> > This solution also gets us separate binaries for separate supported
>> >> > versions, which is useful.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. A second option, and the preferred one I think for 1.5.0, is to
put
>> >> > a Hadoop2 patch in the branch's contrib directory
>> >> > (branches/1.5/contrib) that patches the POM files to support building
>> >> > against Hadoop2. (Acknowledgement to Keith for suggesting this
>> >> > solution.)
>> >> >
>> >> > 3. A third option is to fork Accumulo, and maintain two separate
>> >> > builds (a more traditional technique). This adds merging nightmare
for
>> >> > features/patches, but gets around some reflection hacks that we may
>> >> > have been motivated to do in the past. I'm not a fan of this option,
>> >> > particularly because I don't want to replicate the fork nightmare that
>> >> > has been the history of early Hadoop itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > 4. The last option is to do nothing and to continue to build with the
>> >> > separate profiles as we are, and make users discover and specify
>> >> > transitive dependencies entirely on their own. I think this is the
>> >> > worst option, as it essentially amounts to "ignore the problem".
>> >> >
>> >> > At the very least, it does not seem reasonable to complete
>> >> > ACCUMULO-1402 for 1.5.0, given the complexity of this issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts? Discussion? Vote on option?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Mime
View raw message