I don't think that many users care about the internals of the quickstart pom file and are just happy if it works.
I would not cancel the ongoing vote for that. We might fix it if the vote is canceled, but it has no priority, IMO. 2015-06-18 15:32 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org>: > Hey all, > > looking at the quickstarts for the upcoming release, I am a little > confused: > > We use the shade plugin to build a fat jar and exclude some of Flink's > dependencies (actual and transitive). Then we have a build profile > (build-jar), which sets the Flink dependencies to provided. > > 1. Is there a difference between these two approaches? @Robert and > Stephan: can you comment on this please? I would like to fix this for the > release. The current quickstart pom looks somewhat unclean. > > From my understanding both approaches are equivalent and actually the > "provided" variant w/o cumbersome shade plugin exclusion configuration > should be preferred, e.g. > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.flink</groupId> > <artifactId>flink-java</artifactId> > <version>0.9.0</version> > <scope>provided</scope> > </dependency> > > ... (other Flink deps for the quickstart) > > + simple shade plugin configuration to build a fat jar (don't need to set > any exclusions (which is doomed to get out-of-sync)). > > > If I am not overlooking anything, this approach is much cleaner and should > be the default. > > – Ufuk > > >
