accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joey Echeverria <>
Subject Re: "Provided" dependencies
Date Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:03:46 GMT
I'm a little lost here I think.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Michael Berman <> wrote:
> As far as the provided question goes, it seems to me that the only reason
> to mark a dep provided is if we think developers will *usually* want to
> compile against different versions.  Initially I thought it would make
> sense if we thought the runtime versions would vary, but Chris makes a good
> point that the deps we include in the distributed package can be selected
> independently of the maven dep scope.

If I depend on Accumulo in my maven project, then I shouldn't need to
depend on Hadoop unless the APIs I'm using leak that dependency or I
have an explicit dependency on Hadoop elsewhere.

> Since you can build accumulo against
> any version of hadoop and it will still run against any other version of
> hadoop, I think it's better to make things easier on us by having it
> compile scoped.

That's not strictly true. If you build against Hadoop1, I don't think
you can run against Hadoop2, but I could be wrong. I do know that
unless you're doing some reflection magic, you have to modify
[In|Out]putFormats as the APIs moved some classes to interfaces and
vice versa.

> If someone depends on the accumulo server, then they may have to exclude
> the transitive dependency if our hadoop is polluting theirs, but I think
> that issue can be mitigated by not requiring client apps to depend on the
> entire server.

I could see the server artifact having Hadoop scoped compile, but I
can't imagine that most users actually build against it. Or are we
just taking about changing it for -server?


> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Joey Echeverria <>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 <> 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
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >

View raw message