+1 for separate module. Honestly, since we're beginning to refer to both use cases- automated integration tests and single node accumulo, I'd feel more comfortable having it in a separate module. Up until we started discussions about packaging and maven plugins, I'd have been for keeping it in server.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm actually in favor of the separate module... > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Back when we first moved it from test to server, it was deemed silly to > have > > a single module devoted to a single class. > > > > Corey -- if you have reason/justification to make a module out of it with > > your recent changes, that makes sense to me. > > > > > > On 5/20/13 11:50 AM, Ed Kohlwey wrote: > >> > >> Why isn't this it's own module? Hadoop and other projects have their > mini > >> cluster code isolated in a separate artifact. > >> On May 19, 2013 10:11 PM, "Jim Klucar" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> MiniAccumuloCluster moved to the 'server' module, which is fine. > However, > >>> I > >>> now have to have a dependency on accumulo-start and accumulo-server to > be > >>> able to use the MiniAccumuloCluster. There isn't really any way of > know > >>> that until you fire up a MiniAccumloCluster object and call .start() > and > >>> get a ClassNotFoundException on the Main class from accumulo-start. > >>> Seems > >>> like depending on accumulo-server should pull in accumulo-start > (creates > >>> circular dependency?) or some other solution should be found. > >>> > >> > > >
