accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: "Provided" dependencies
Date Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:46:17 GMT
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Why exactly do you think
specifying the scope as provided makes sense?

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


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> The provided make sense for hadoop to pick up dependencies. To a less
> extent, it makes sense for ZK.
>
> However, as someone who is using accumulo for a project, I would love to
> have a client library that is as sparse as possible to avoid having to deal
> with resource conflicts.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Joey Echeverria <joey+ml@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
>
>> Do Accumulo users need Hadoop or it's dependencies in order to use the
>> client APIs?
>>
>> The only client API that I could see needing it would be the
>> [In|Out]putFormats, but it'd be cool if that was a separate module and
>> that module had the appropriate Hadoop dependencies with the compile
>> scope.
>>
>> -Joey
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>> > What's the latest opinion whether things should be marked "provided" in
>> the pom?
>> > I've changed my mind on this a few times, myself, so I'm curious what
>> > others think.
>> >
>> > The provided scope means that it will not propagate as a transitive
>> > dependency. Other than that, it doesn't do much... though we can
>> > control packaging based on provided or not.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure this gets us much, and it's inconvenient for users. We
>> > can control packaging in other ways (like being more explicit and
>> > carefully considering which dependencies we include in an RPM or
>> > tarball, for instance).
>> >
>> > If we drop its declaration, what this means, is that if users want to
>> > build with Accumulo as a dependency, but against a different version
>> > of Hadoop than what we declare in our POM, they'll have to explicitly
>> > <exclude> the hadoop dependencies, and redeclare them, or they will
>> > have to use their <dependencyManagement> section to force a particular
>> > dependency of hadoop.
>> >
>> > The advantage to users, though, if we drop this, is that they won't
>> > have to constantly re-declare transitive dependencies to get their
>> > projects to build/test/run.
>> >
>> > See http://s.apache.org/maven-dependency-scopes
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>

Mime
View raw message