spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Necessity of Maven *and* SBT Build in Spark
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:59:29 GMT
i dont buy the argument that we should use it because its the most common.


if all we would do is use what is most common then we should switch to
java, svn and maven


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Mark Grover <grover.markgrover@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
> And, to pile on what Sandy said. In my opinion, it's definitely more than
> just a matter of convenience. My comment below applies both to distribution
> builders but also people who have their own internal "distributions" (a few
> examples of which we have already seen on this thread already).
>
> If one has to ensure consistent and harmonized versions of dependencies
> (whether they are being built as a part of the distribution e.g. zookeeper
> or pulled in transitively e.g. jersey), inheriting a root pom is the only
> sane way I know of doing so. It's really painful and error prone for a
> packager wanting to bump up jersey version for the entire stack, to have to
> bump up the version in a root pom for all maven projects but have to also
> go to ant's build properties file for all ant based projects and possibly
> sbt's build properties file to bump up the version there. Now, it was
> suggested that sbt can read such a pom file with use of a plugin and that
> would work for me but I personally don't think the other alternative of
> parsing out the pom file in scala would fly all that much.
>
> And then, of course, there is this subjective point of people being very
> familiar with maven as compared to sbt, it having a larger community base
> and there is something to be said for that.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Patrick Wendell <pwendell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > @mridul - As far as I know both Maven and Sbt use fairly similar
> > processes for building the assembly/uber jar. We actually used to
> > package spark with sbt and there were no specific issues we
> > encountered and AFAIK sbt respects versioning of transitive
> > dependencies correctly. Do you have a specific bug listing for sbt
> > that indicates something is broken?
> >
> > @sandy - It sounds like you are saying that the CDH build would be
> > easier with Maven because you can inherit the POM. However, is this
> > just a matter of convenience for packagers or would standardizing on
> > sbt limit capabilities in some way? I assume that it would just mean a
> > bit more manual work for packagers having to figure out how to set the
> > hadoop version in SBT and exclude certain dependencies. For instance,
> > what does CDH about other components like Impala that are not based on
> > Maven at all?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Evan Chan <ev@ooyala.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like to propose the following way to move forward, based on the
> > > comments I've seen:
> > >
> > > 1.  Aggressively clean up the giant dependency graph.   One ticket I
> > > might work on if I have time is SPARK-681 which might remove the giant
> > > fastutil dependency (~15MB by itself).
> > >
> > > 2.  Take an intermediate step by having only ONE source of truth
> > > w.r.t. dependencies and versions.  This means either:
> > >    a)  Using a maven POM as the spec for dependencies, Hadoop version,
> > > etc.   Then, use sbt-pom-reader to import it.
> > >    b)  Using the build.scala as the spec, and "sbt make-pom" to
> > > generate the pom.xml for the dependencies
> > >
> > >     The idea is to remove the pain and errors associated with manual
> > > translation of dependency specs from one system to another, while
> > > still maintaining the things which are hard to translate (plugins).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Koert Kuipers <koert@tresata.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> We maintain in house spark build using sbt. We have no problem using
> sbt
> > >> assembly. We did add a few exclude statements for transitive
> > dependencies.
> > >>
> > >> The main enemy of assemblies are jars that include stuff they
> shouldn't
> > >> (kryo comes to mind, I think they include logback?), new versions of
> > jars
> > >> that change the provider/artifact without changing the package (asm),
> > and
> > >> incompatible new releases (protobuf). These break the transitive
> > resolution
> > >> process. I imagine that's true for any build tool.
> > >>
> > >> Besides shading I don't see anything maven can do sbt cannot, and if I
> > >> understand it correctly shading is not done currently using the build
> > tool.
> > >>
> > >> Since spark is primarily scala/akka based the main developer base will
> > be
> > >> familiar with sbt (I think?). Switching build tool is always painful.
> I
> > >> personally think it is smarter to put this burden on a limited number
> of
> > >> upstream integrators than on the community. However that said I don't
> > think
> > >> its a problem for us to maintain an sbt build in-house if spark
> > switched to
> > >> maven.
> > >> The problem is, the complete spark dependency graph is fairly large,
> > >> and there are lot of conflicting versions in there.
> > >> In particular, when we bump versions of dependencies - making managing
> > >> this messy at best.
> > >>
> > >> Now, I have not looked in detail at how maven manages this - it might
> > >> just be accidental that we get a decent out-of-the-box assembled
> > >> shaded jar (since we dont do anything great to configure it).
> > >> With current state of sbt in spark, it definitely is not a good
> > >> solution : if we can enhance it (or it already is ?), while keeping
> > >> the management of the version/dependency graph manageable, I dont have
> > >> any objections to using sbt or maven !
> > >> Too many exclude versions, pinned versions, etc would just make things
> > >> unmanageable in future.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Mridul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Evan chan <ev@ooyala.com> wrote:
> > >>> Actually you can control exactly how sbt assembly merges or resolves
> > >> conflicts.  I believe the default settings however lead to order which
> > >> cannot be controlled.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do wish for a smarter fat jar plugin.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Evan
> > >>> To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a
> way
> > >> that respects & enhances the freedom of others. (#NelsonMandela)
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:50 PM, Mridul Muralidharan <mridul@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Patrick Wendell <
> pwendell@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>> Evan - this is a good thing to bring up. Wrt the shader plug-in
-
> > >>>>> right now we don't actually use it for bytecode shading - we
simply
> > >>>>> use it for creating the uber jar with excludes (which sbt supports
> > >>>>> just fine via assembly).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Not really - as I mentioned initially in this thread, sbt's assembly
> > >>>> does not take dependencies into account properly : and can overwrite
> > >>>> newer classes with older versions.
> > >>>> From an assembly point of view, sbt is not very good : we are yet
to
> > >>>> try it after 2.10 shift though (and probably wont, given the mess
it
> > >>>> created last time).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Mridul
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I was wondering actually, do you know if it's possible to added
> > shaded
> > >>>>> artifacts to the *spark jar* using this plug-in (e.g. not an
uber
> > >>>>> jar)? That's something I could see being really handy in the
> future.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - Patrick
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Evan Chan <ev@ooyala.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>> The problem is that plugins are not equivalent.  There
is AFAIK no
> > >>>>>> equivalent to the maven shader plugin for SBT.
> > >>>>>> There is an SBT plugin which can apparently read POM XML
files
> > >>>>>> (sbt-pom-reader).   However, it can't possibly handle plugins,
> which
> > >>>>>> is still problematic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM, yao <yaoshengzhe@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I would prefer keep both of them, it would be better
even if that
> > >> means
> > >>>>>>> pom.xml will be generated using sbt. Some company,
like my
> current
> > >> one,
> > >>>>>>> have their own build infrastructures built on top of
maven. It is
> > not
> > >> easy
> > >>>>>>> to support sbt for these potential spark clients. But
I do agree
> to
> > >> only
> > >>>>>>> keep one if there is a promising way to generate correct
> > >> configuration from
> > >>>>>>> the other.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -Shengzhe
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Evan Chan <ev@ooyala.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The correct way to exclude dependencies in SBT
is actually to
> > declare
> > >>>>>>>> a dependency as "provided".   I'm not familiar
with Maven or its
> > >>>>>>>> dependencySet, but provided will mark the entire
dependency tree
> > as
> > >>>>>>>> excluded.   It is also possible to exclude jar
by jar, but this
> is
> > >>>>>>>> pretty error prone and messy.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Koert Kuipers
<
> > koert@tresata.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> yes in sbt assembly you can exclude jars (although
i never had
> a
> > >> need for
> > >>>>>>>>> this) and files in jars.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> for example i frequently remove log4j.properties,
because for
> > >> whatever
> > >>>>>>>>> reason hadoop decided to include it making
it very difficult to
> > use
> > >> our
> > >>>>>>>> own
> > >>>>>>>>> logging config.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Konstantin
Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:11AM, Patrick
Wendell wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Kos - thanks for chiming in. Could
you be more specific about
> > >> what is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> available in maven and not in sbt for
these issues? I took a
> > look
> > >> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the bigtop code relating to Spark.
As far as I could tell [1]
> > was
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> main point of integration with the
build system (maybe there
> > are
> > >> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>> integration points)?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  - in order to integrate Spark
well into existing Hadoop
> > stack it
> > >>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    necessary to have a way to avoid
transitive dependencies
> > >>>>>>>>>> duplications and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    possible conflicts.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    E.g. Maven assembly allows us
to avoid adding _all_
> Hadoop
> > >> libs
> > >>>>>>>>>> and later
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    merely declare Spark package
dependency on standard
> Bigtop
> > >>>>>>>> Hadoop
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    packages. And yes - Bigtop packaging
means the naming and
> > >> layout
> > >>>>>>>>>> would be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    standard across all commercial
Hadoop distributions that
> > are
> > >>>>>>>> worth
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    mentioning: ASF Bigtop convenience
binary packages, and
> > >>>>>>>> Cloudera or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    Hortonworks packages. Hence,
the downstream user doesn't
> > need
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> spend any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    effort to make sure that Spark
"clicks-in" properly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The sbt build also allows you to plug
in a Hadoop version
> > similar
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the maven build.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I am actually talking about an ability
to exclude a set of
> > >> dependencies
> > >>>>>>>>>> from an
> > >>>>>>>>>> assembly, similarly to what's happening
in dependencySet
> > sections
> > >> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>    assembly/src/main/assembly/assembly.xml
> > >>>>>>>>>> If there is a comparable functionality
in Sbt, that would help
> > >> quite a
> > >>>>>>>> bit,
> > >>>>>>>>>> apparently.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cos
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  - Maven provides a relatively
easy way to deal with the
> > jar-hell
> > >>>>>>>>>> problem,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    although the original maven
build was just Shader'ing
> > >> everything
> > >>>>>>>>>> into a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    huge lump of class files. Oftentimes
ending up with
> classes
> > >>>>>>>>>> slamming on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>    top of each other from different
transitive dependencies.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> AFIAK we are only using the shade plug-in
to deal with
> conflict
> > >>>>>>>>>>> resolution in the assembly jar. These
are dealt with in sbt
> via
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sbt assembly plug-in in an identical
way. Is there a
> > difference?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I am bringing up the Sharder, because it
is an awful hack,
> > which is
> > >>>>>>>> can't
> > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> used in real controlled deployment.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cos
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=bigtop.git;a=blob;f=bigtop-packages/src/common/spark/do-component-build;h=428540e0f6aa56cd7e78eb1c831aa7fe9496a08f;hb=master
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Evan Chan
> > >>>>>>>> Staff Engineer
> > >>>>>>>> ev@ooyala.com  |
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Evan Chan
> > >>>>>> Staff Engineer
> > >>>>>> ev@ooyala.com  |
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Evan Chan
> > > Staff Engineer
> > > ev@ooyala.com  |
> >
>

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