flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Scala 2.10/2.11 Maven dependencies
Date Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:17:54 GMT
I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven since
more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. Having the
dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably easier for
people to get their Flink jobs running.

Furthermore, I observed that people are not aware that our deployed
artifacts, e.g. flink-runtime, are built with Scala 2.10. As a consequence,
they mix flink dependencies with other dependencies pulling in Scala 2.11
and then they wonder that the program crashes. It would be, imho, clearer
if all our dependencies which depend on a specific Scala version would have
the corresponding Scala suffix appended.

Adding the 2.10 suffix would also spare us the hassle of upgrading to a
newer Scala version in the future, because then the artifacts wouldn't
share the same artifact name.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Flinksters,
> We have recently committed an easy way to change Flink's Scala version. The
> question arises now whether we should ship Scala 2.11 as binaries and via
> Maven. For the rc0, I created all binaries twice, for Scala 2.10 and 2.11.
> However, I didn't create Maven artifacts. This follows our current shipping
> strategy where we only ship Hadoop1 and Hadoop 2.3.0 Maven dependencies but
> additionally Hadoop 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 as binaries.
> Should we also upload Maven dependencies for Scala 2.11?
> If so, the next question arises: What version pattern should we have for
> the Flink Scala 2.11 dependencies? For Hadoop, we append -hadoop1 to the
> VERSION, e.g. artifactID=flink-core, version=0.9.1-hadoop1.
> However, it is common practice to append the suffix to the artifactID of
> the Maven dependency, e.g. artifactID=flink-core_2.11, version=0.9.1. This
> has mostly historic reasons but is widely used.
> Whatever naming pattern we choose, it should be consistent. I would be in
> favor of changing our artifact names to contain the Hadoop and Scala
> version. This would also imply that all Scala dependent Maven modules
> receive a Scala suffix (also the default Scala 2.10 modules).
> Cheers,
> Max

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message