Calcite core/pom.xml uses Jackson but doesn’t have an explicit dependency. You removed the explicit dependency 6 months ago in https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/cb7c213 <https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/cb7c213>.
When we further separate Avatica from Calcite maybe we’ll revisit how core gets its Jackson. Julian > On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > (being lazy -- sorry) Does Calcite rely on the Jackson coming in from Avatica > now? Or is it purely just there because of the shading? > > Julian Hyde wrote: >> Is it reasonable to have a maven profile that uses jackson as “provided”[1] >> rather than shading? This would not be the default — the default would be >> continue to use a shaded version of jackson (relocated to >> org.apache.calcite.jackson, as Josh suggests) — but folks looking to embed >> calcite/avatica in a container might appreciate a lighter weight option. >> >> Julian >> >> [1] >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6646959/difference-between-maven-scope-compile-and-provided-for-jar-packaging<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6646959/difference-between-maven-scope-compile-and-provided-for-jar-packaging> >> >> >>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kai, >>> >>> Avatica includes Jackson for the JSON parser (one of the serialization >>> mechanisms that Avatica uses). The Avatica client is designed to be a >>> single-artifact to make deployments for users very simple. >>> >>> That being said, since we're shading in Jackson, we should relocate it to >>> avoid problems for you downstream in Calcite "proper". Want to open a JIRA >>> issue? Thanks for bringing it up. >>> >>> - Josh >>> >>> Kai Gülzau wrote: >>>> Hi *, >>>> >>>> what’s the reason for including the whole Jackson jar inside the avatica >>>> jar? >>>> We are just using the calcite sql parser and are using a newer version of >>>> Jackson as included in avatica. >>>> >>>> As a result we can’t use the newer functionality of Jackson since the >>>> included version is used :-\ >>>> >>>> From my point of view it doesn’t make sense to include Jackson (with the >>>> normal package path) when it is also a compile dependency… >>>> >>>> >>>> When I have read it correctly in an older post >>>> “When we come to consensus on shading that could be another JIRA case.” >>>> It time to open a JIRA case? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kai >> >>
