lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Høydahl (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-3405) maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:14:50 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13263195#comment-13263195
] 

Jan Høydahl commented on SOLR-3405:
-----------------------------------

+1 to continue publishing to mvn-repositories

It's a huge benefit for many users and downstream professionals. We have at least 2 committers
willing to maintain this, and we're getting better at it each time. I think that's all it
takes.

It seems actually that the commons-csv issue - which was *not* a Maven issue - has actually
helped us clean up a lot of mess in our sources, build system, dependency structure etc. It's
been too easy to include questionable libs or non-released libs, and that's the real problem
if you ask me. So publishing to mvn-repo actually keeps us accountable in legally being good
Apache citizens as well as shipping higher quality, more stable stuff. It's a Good Thing™
that Noggit got its release. It will be a good thing if/when commons-csv ships a release that
we can depend on without patching.

Regarding "hiding" stuff in our binary .jars or .war - that won't solve anything. Some people
actually run more than Solr in their app-server, add their own plugins etc. So the risk of
package name clash or slf4j binding incompatibilities actually increases, the more things
we throw into the .war. I just had a project with a webapp using SolrJ needed slf4j 1.5.8,
which crashed with SolrJ's jcl-over-slf4j (1.6.1) dependency. The solution was simply to exclude
the 1.6.1 dep and things worked fine. If SolrJ was just one huge .jar with all deps melted
together that would not be an option.

I'm also +1 for including all required deps in the binary release of Solr.
                
> maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-3405
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3405
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Build
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>             Fix For: 4.1
>
>
> Lets take the commons-csv scenario: 
> * apache-solr-3.5.0 binary distribution contains no actual commons-csv.jar anywhere,
>   in fact it contains no third party jars (the stuff present in solr/lib) at all.
> * binary distribution contains only the jars necessary for *solrj* and *contrib plugins*,
and a solr.war
> I think the maven artifacts should match whats in the binary release (no third party
jars 
> inside the .war are "exposed", we just publish the .war itself). This exposes a lot less
surface area.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

       

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message