+1 for moving it in 1.5 for all the previous reasons specified. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I think we should move it in 1.5. The bug Eric found this morning, along >> > > Thats ok w/ me. I mostly want to avoid the deprecation route. > > > >> with the laundry list of non-breakers, are enough for an RC5 to be cut. >> This should be pulled in. Having packages not align with modules causes >> nothing must frustration and confusion when trying to debug things. >> >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I think it's worth asking because a few people expressed interest in >> > moving >> > > the mini cluster to it's own module. Do we want this for 1.5 or do we >> > wait >> > > until 1.6 and provide a deprecation strategy? >> > > >> > >> > I think we should move it in 1.5 XOR leave the package name the same in >> > 1.6, but move it to another module. Either way avoids API changes for >> > users. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Agreed, they also slow down the build. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Maybe... or 'jar-with-dependencies' assembly, or something similar, >> > > >> might be useful. >> > > >> I'd probably argue for it to be in a de-activated profile, by >> default, >> > > >> though. Shaded jars can become problematic if people start using >> them >> > > >> as dependencies. >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> > > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > This may be far out into space- but how would you guys feel about >> > > >> providing >> > > >> > a shaded jar in the pom for a new mini module? This may make it >> > easier >> > > >> for >> > > >> > users to run the mini accumulo cluster without hadoop/zookeeper >> > > >> installed. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> ACCUMULO-1436 for fixing "provided" dependencies. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> -- >> > > >> >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> > > >> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Christopher < >> ctubb...@apache.org >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > You're right. I'm not sure why our internal dependencies would >> be >> > > >> >> > marked as provided... except maybe I made that mistake to try >> to >> > > deal >> > > >> >> > with the mess of the 'copy-dependencies' stuff. That should be >> > > fixed. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > -- >> > > >> >> > Christopher L Tubbs II >> > > >> >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> >> Jim, accumulo-start is a provided dependency for all of the >> > other >> > > >> >> versions. >> > > >> >> >> So when you list accumulo-server as a dependency, it does not >> > pull >> > > >> in >> > > >> >> the >> > > >> >> >> provided dependencies. >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> This is sort of what I was getting at before, Chris. The >> > provided >> > > >> jars >> > > >> >> >> don't get pulled in/referenced when they are marked as >> provided. >> > > For >> > > >> >> >> external dependencies, that totally makes sense. But I don't >> > know >> > > >> why we >> > > >> >> >> need to mark other accumulo parts as provided. I find it >> > difficult >> > > >> to >> > > >> >> >> believe that that is a standard maven configuration. It is >> > > extremely >> > > >> >> >> painful for downstream clients. >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jim Klucar <klu...@gmail.com >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>> The question mark was in my statement because I didn't >> actually >> > > >> know >> > > >> >> if it >> > > >> >> >>> created a circular dependency. It appears that Corey found it >> > > >> doesn't >> > > >> >> have >> > > >> >> >>> one. All I did was put a dependency on accumulo-master and >> saw >> > > that >> > > >> >> when I >> > > >> >> >>> did so, Maven didn't pull accumulo-start for me. From my >> > > >> understanding, >> > > >> >> >>> that is the whole point of Maven, to handle the >> > sub-dependencies >> > > of >> > > >> >> what >> > > >> >> >>> I'm trying to use and when I tried to use >> MiniAccumuloCluster, >> > it >> > > >> >> didn't >> > > >> >> >>> pull all the right dependencies. >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Corey Nolet < >> > cjno...@gmail.com> >> > > >> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> > I take that back- the start module does not have an >> explicit >> > > >> >> dependency >> > > >> >> >>> on >> > > >> >> >>> > accumulo-server. As long as the Main.class is used from the >> > > >> assembly >> > > >> >> >>> > artifact's classpath, everything should work fine. >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> >> >>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Corey Nolet < >> > > cjno...@gmail.com> >> > > >> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> >> >>> > > The only part that makes a circular dependency is >> including >> > > the >> > > >> >> >>> > > MiniAccumuloRunner in the Main.class. I'm not sure if >> that >> > > >> warrants >> > > >> >> >>> > needing >> > > >> >> >>> > > to rearchitect the runner, since it was made to give >> users >> > > the >> > > >> >> ability >> > > >> >> >>> to >> > > >> >> >>> > > interact with the Miniaccumulocluster as a single node >> > > >> accumulo. >> > > >> >> It was >> > > >> >> >>> > > also made to make the maven plugin much easier and >> > > standardize >> > > >> the >> > > >> >> >>> > > interface. Seems like two options are to remove the >> runner >> > > >> option >> > > >> >> from >> > > >> >> >>> > the >> > > >> >> >>> > > Main.class or move it to the start module. >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > Personally, I'd opt for moving the runner to the start >> > > module. >> > > >> >> >>> > > On May 20, 2013 8:12 AM, "David Medinets" < >> > > >> >> david.medin...@gmail.com> >> > > >> >> >>> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> Combine this work with Dave Marion's work and put >> > > >> >> MiniAccumuloRunner >> > > >> >> >>> > into >> > > >> >> >>> > >> an add-on script? >> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > > >> >> >>> > >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Corey Nolet < >> > > >> cjno...@gmail.com> >> > > >> >> >>> wrote: >> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > I think the ability to run "./bin/accumulo mini" may >> > have >> > > >> >> introduced >> > > >> >> >>> > >> this >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > circular dependency. Perhaps the MiniAccumuloRunner >> > should >> > > >> be >> > > >> >> moved >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > somewhere else. >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > On May 20, 2013 12:07 AM, "Christopher" < >> > > >> ctubb...@apache.org> >> > > >> >> >>> wrote: >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > What do you mean there isn't a way to know this? >> > Doesn't >> > > >> the >> > > >> >> >>> server >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > POM express the dependency on start, explicitly? >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > How are you executing MiniAccumuloCluster when you >> get >> > > >> this >> > > >> >> error? >> > > >> >> >>> > I'm >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > guessing you have a project with a dependency on >> > > >> >> >>> "accumulo-server"? >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > Can you elaborate more on this circular dependency >> > risk >> > > >> you >> > > >> >> >>> mention? >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > I'm not sure how "accumulo-server" depending on >> > > >> >> "accumulo-start" >> > > >> >> >>> is >> > > >> >> >>> > a >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > circular dependency. Are you suggesting >> > "accumulo-start" >> > > >> also >> > > >> >> has >> > > >> >> >>> a >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > dependency on "accumulo-server"? Because... it >> > > >> shouldn't... >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > -- >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > Christopher L Tubbs II >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Jim Klucar < >> > > >> >> klu...@gmail.com> >> > > >> >> >>> > >> 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. >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
