On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm curious to hear what people think on this. > > I'm a really big fan of spinning up a minicluster instance to do some > "more real" testing of software as I write it. > > With 1.5.0, it's a bit more painful because I have to add a bunch more > dependencies to my project (which previously would only have to depend > on the accumulo-minicluster artifact). The list includes, but is > likely not limited to, commons-io, commons-configuration, > hadoop-client, zookeeper, log4j, slf4j-api, slf4j-log4j12. > > Best as I understand it, the intent of this was that Hadoop will > typically provide these artifacts at runtime, and therefore Accumulo > doesn't need to re-bundle them itself which I'd agree with (not > getting into that whole issue about the Hadoop "ecosystem"). However, > I would think that the minicluster should have non-provided scope > dependencies declared on these, as there is no Hadoop installation -- > Would this require declaring dependencies on a particular version of hadoop in the minicluster pom? Or could the minicluster pom have profiles for different hadoop versions? I do not know enough about maven to know if you can use profiles declared in a dependency (e.g. if a user depends on minicluster, can they activate profiles in it?) > there's just the minicluster. As such, this would alleviate users from > having to dig into our dependency management or trial&error to figure > out what "extra" dependencies they have to include in their project to > actually make it work > > Thoughts? > > - Josh >
