You could either do what Owen suggested and put the plugin in hive contrib, or you could just put the whole thing in hive contrib as then you would have access to all the lower level api (core, hdfs, hive etc.). Owen's approach makes a lot of sense if you think that the hive dependency is a loose one and you would have plugins for other systems to achieve your goal. However, if this is a hard dependency, then putting it in hive contrib make more sense. Either approach is fine, depending upon your goals.
Ashish -----Original Message----- From: Owen O'Malley [mailto:omal...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:39 AM To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: Linking against Hive in Hadoop development tree On May 15, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Aaron Kimball wrote: > Yikes. So part of sqoop would wind up in one source repository, and > part in another? This makes my head hurt a bit. I'd say rather that Sqoop is in Mapred and the adapter to Hive is in Hive. > I'm also not convinced how that helps. Clearly, what you need to arrange is to not have a compile time dependence on Hive. Clearly we don't want cycles in the dependence tree, so you need to figure out how to make the adapter for Hive a plugin rather than a part of the Sqoop core. -- Owen
