accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MiniCluster and "provided" scope dependencies
Date Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:25:33 GMT
being-lazy: do we have one that encompasses this issue already? Is
there a good parent for me to piggy-back on to?

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree. The provided stuff was done mainly to drive our packaging in
> 1.5, not to cater to maven developers. There are a few open tickets
> about this for 1.6.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious to hear what people think on this.
>>
>> I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to do some
>> "more real" testing of software as I write it.
>>
>> With 1.5.0, it's a bit more painful because I have to add a bunch more
>> dependencies to my project (which previously would only have to depend
>> on the accumulo-minicluster artifact). The list includes, but is
>> likely not limited to, commons-io, commons-configuration,
>> hadoop-client, zookeeper, log4j, slf4j-api, slf4j-log4j12.
>>
>> Best as I understand it, the intent of this was that Hadoop will
>> typically provide these artifacts at runtime, and therefore Accumulo
>> doesn't need to re-bundle them itself which I'd agree with (not
>> getting into that whole issue about the Hadoop "ecosystem"). However,
>> I would think that the minicluster should have non-provided scope
>> dependencies declared on these, as there is no Hadoop installation --
>> there's just the minicluster. As such, this would alleviate users from
>> having to dig into our dependency management or trial&error to figure
>> out what "extra" dependencies they have to include in their project to
>> actually make it work
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> - Josh

Mime
View raw message