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: [DISCUSS] Proposed binary packaging changes
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2016 20:21:06 GMT
Christopher wrote:
> FWIW, it was reported to metoday  that a user ran into an issue where my
> recent update of commons-configuration caused an integration problem
> because our scripts/packaging do not bundle commons-configuration and we
> just assume it will work with the version provided by Hadoop lib directory.
> That's the kind of thing I'd like to avoid... users should understand that
> assumptions in our packaging may not work for them, and we're creating work
> for ourselves while failing to communicate that when we try to bundle
> everything for them.
>
> If we were a self-contained application, we could even go the opposite way,
> and bundle everything. But, we're not. We're picking and choosing what to
> bundle, and our choices might not be right. We should make it easier for
> the users to choose, instead.

Perhaps tangential (but maybe not?): I would love to get to a point 
where we prevent the ability for users to be depending on Accumulo for 
dependencies. While there are security reasons that we would want to 
really sandbox iterators entirely, it would be good to encourage a model 
of iterator deployment which doesn't push users to developing a 
dependence on the JARs that we bundle.

IMO, the jars we bundle should only be used by us. Users shouldn't know 
about them and they should include the necessary things they require.

Mime
View raw message