Awesome Chris, thanks. I didn't know where to begin looking for that one. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On May 14, 2013 7:11 PM, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> With the right configuration, you could use the copy-dependencies goal > of the maven-dependency-plugin to gather your dependencies to one > place. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:14 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > On that note, I was wondering if there were any suggestions for how to > deal > > with the laundry list of provided dependencies that Accumulo core has? > > Writing packages against it is a bit ugly if not using the accumulo > script > > to start. Are there any maven utilities to automatically dissect provided > > dependencies and make them included. > > > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > > On May 14, 2013 6:09 PM, "Keith Turner" <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > >> One note about option 4. When using 1.4 users have to include hadoop > core > >> as a dependency in their pom. This must be done because the 1.4 Accumulo > >> pom marks hadoop-core as provided. So maybe option 4 is ok if the deps > in > >> the profile are provided? > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > So, I've run into a problem with ACCUMULO-1402 that requires a larger > >> > discussion about how Accumulo 1.5.0 should support Hadoop2. > >> > > >> > The problem is basically that profiles should not contain > >> > dependencies, because profiles don't get activated transitively. A > >> > slide deck by the Maven developers point this out as a bad practice... > >> > yet it's a practice we rely on for our current implementation of > >> > Hadoop2 support > >> > (http://www.slideshare.net/aheritier/geneva-jug-30th-march-2010-maven > >> > slide 80). > >> > > >> > What this means is that even if we go through the work of publishing > >> > binary artifacts compiled against Hadoop2, neither our Hadoop1 > >> > binaries or our Hadoop2 binaries will be able to transitively resolve > >> > any dependencies defined in profiles. This has significant > >> > implications to user code that depends on Accumulo Maven artifacts. > >> > Every user will essentially have to explicitly add Hadoop dependencies > >> > for every Accumulo artifact that has dependencies on Hadoop, either > >> > because we directly or transitively depend on Hadoop (they'll have to > >> > peek into the profiles in our POMs and copy/paste the profile into > >> > their project). This becomes more complicated when we consider how > >> > users will try to use things like Instamo. > >> > > >> > There are workarounds, but none of them are really pleasant. > >> > > >> > 1. The best way to support both major Hadoop APIs is to have separate > >> > modules with separate dependencies directly in the POM. This is a fair > >> > amount of work, and in my opinion, would be too disruptive for 1.5.0. > >> > This solution also gets us separate binaries for separate supported > >> > versions, which is useful. > >> > > >> > 2. A second option, and the preferred one I think for 1.5.0, is to put > >> > a Hadoop2 patch in the branch's contrib directory > >> > (branches/1.5/contrib) that patches the POM files to support building > >> > against Hadoop2. (Acknowledgement to Keith for suggesting this > >> > solution.) > >> > > >> > 3. A third option is to fork Accumulo, and maintain two separate > >> > builds (a more traditional technique). This adds merging nightmare for > >> > features/patches, but gets around some reflection hacks that we may > >> > have been motivated to do in the past. I'm not a fan of this option, > >> > particularly because I don't want to replicate the fork nightmare that > >> > has been the history of early Hadoop itself. > >> > > >> > 4. The last option is to do nothing and to continue to build with the > >> > separate profiles as we are, and make users discover and specify > >> > transitive dependencies entirely on their own. I think this is the > >> > worst option, as it essentially amounts to "ignore the problem". > >> > > >> > At the very least, it does not seem reasonable to complete > >> > ACCUMULO-1402 for 1.5.0, given the complexity of this issue. > >> > > >> > Thoughts? Discussion? Vote on option? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > >> >
