flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Theodore Vasiloudis <theodoros.vasilou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Scala 2.10/2.11 Maven dependencies
Date Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:11:06 GMT
+1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application currently with
Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying e.g. to EC2 is a
pain.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:

> I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this
> release already?
>
> I would postpone it to 1.0.0.
>
> – Ufuk
>
> > On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > 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
> >>
>
>

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