Thank you for favorable responses. I'll start implementation. On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> wrote:
> > Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? > > Not that I know of. I couldn't find "bom" in their artifacts [1, 2]. > > [1]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.flink > [2]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.spark > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:46 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 and you have phrased the benefits and limitations well. We have plenty >> of not-Google-related dependencies that use Guava and protobuf (I know of >> Calcite, Cassandra, Kinesis, and Spark) so there's still work in managing >> deps, but the BOM should make it a lot easier to upgrade all these tightly >> coupled libraries that Google ships from their head. >> >> Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? I wonder if there's an opportunity to catch >> incompatible deps at a larger scale by comparing and merging a half dozen >> BOMs (although in the limit it approximately expands to one per runner and >> one per IO and projects mature and become independent) >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:05 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> How would the Apache Beam BOM and GCP BOM work together? >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:25 AM Filipe Regadas <filiperega...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Big +1, this is a step in the right direction and checking with other >>>> Beam's direct and transitive deps is crucial since the referred bom only >>>> convers a small part of it. Apache Commons, Jackson, `com.google.{api, >>>> apis, cloud}`, slf4j comes to mind. >>>> >>>> Filipe Regadas >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:33 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 Sounds like a good improvement for users and maintainers ! >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:59 AM Alex Van Boxel <a...@vanboxel.be> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > +1, I can remember the countless hours that we fought with Google >>>>> dependencies. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 04:07 Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> +1 for this. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This will make life easy for many of our users and will help us >>>>> keep GCP related dependencies compatible (which has not been easy in the >>>>> past). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:16 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Hi Beam developers, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Shall we use GCP Libraries BOM [1] to specify the Google-related >>>>> library versions in Beam? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I've been working on Beam's dependency upgrades in the past few >>>>> months. It's time to consider a long-term solution to keep the libraries >>>>> up-to-date with small maintenance effort. To achieve that, I propose Beam >>>>> to use GCP Libraries BOM to set the Google-related library versions, >>>>> rather >>>>> than the current way of making changes in each of ~30 Google libraries >>>>> with >>>>> individual PRs [2]. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> After the proposal is implemented, Beam project upgrades the BOM >>>>> version to upgrade these Google-related libraries. This still needs to >>>>> ensure the libraries in GCP Library BOM are compatible with Beam's other >>>>> dependencies. (Linkage Checker will help with this job.) I believe >>>>> onboarding GCP Libraries BOM will solve lots of incompatibilities which we >>>>> have seen in gax, gRPC, google-cloud-core, and so on with minimal effort >>>>> in >>>>> Beam's developers. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Created an issue to track this: BEAM-9444 [3]. I appreciate if you >>>>> can share questions or feedback (thumbs-up / concerns). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [1]: >>>>> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-opensource-java/wiki/The-Google-Cloud-Platform-Libraries-BOM >>>>> >>> [2]: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asuztomo >>>>> >>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9444 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>> >>> Tomo >>>>> >>>> > > -- > Regards, > Tomo > -- Regards, Tomo
