> Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all modules are Scala dependent module.
If all modules will need the suffix after your PR is merged, why would you talk about pure/non-pure distinction in the documentation? This adds complexity and may cause confusion which at the moment can be spared. If in the future a "pure Java module" (without) is introduced, the documentation can be updated accordingly. My two cents regarding the "optional suffix policy" are that thinks should be kept simple. If Scala has penetrated 100% percent of the current modules, new modules should be "proactive" and anticipate that this will likely happen to them in the future, even if they start as "pure Java". I prefer a strict policy that makes everything clear for the user (even if it is a bit inefficient in terms of packaging and release management) as opposed to a naming convention based on implementation-details. Regards, A. 2015-07-05 13:16 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org>: > @Stephan: Okay, I’ll find the mentionings in other document. I think that > we > can postpone updating downloads page in flink-web until releasing 0.10. > > @Alexandar Thank you for comments. I’ll apply your suggestions. > > In your example, *flink-pure-java* is not pure java module. If there is > any need > of linkage with Scala dependent module in some module, the module is also > Scala dependent module. Because we are using Scala in our runtime, all > modules are Scala dependent module. > > So in your example, *flink-some-scala-A*, *flink-some-scala-B*, and > *flink-pure-java* should have a suffix `_2.11` if the user want to run in > Flink > with Scala 2.11. (In Scala 2.10, we don’t need it.) > > I agree that it makes too many modules. But it is clear in user > perspective. The > users just decide which Scala version to use their cluster and add a > suffix to > all dependency if the version is 2.11. > > Regards, > Chiwan Park > > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > @Chiwan: > > > > There are a few mentionings of the Scala version in the docs as well. For > > example in "docs/index.md" and on the website under "downloads". > > > > We should make sure we explain on these pages that there are downloads > for > > various Scala versions. > > > > Cheers, > > Stephan > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Alexandrov < > > alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Great, I just posted some comments / improvement suggestions. > >> > >> I have to say I'm still not 100% convinced by the strategy not to add a > >> suffix to all modules. Here is a small example that illustrates my > >> concerns. > >> > >> Consider the following chained dependency situation. We have pure Java > >> artifact *flink-pure-java* which depends on a Scala artifact > >> *flink-some-scala-A*, which in turn depends on *flink-some-scala-B*. > >> > >> Let's say the user has directly included *flink-pure-java* and > >> *flink-some-scala-B* in the his project and wants to build for Scala > 2.11. > >> We end up with a situation like this > >> > >> - flink-pure-java > >> `- flink-some-scala-A > >> `- flink-some-scala-B > >> - flink-some-scala-B_2.11 > >> > >> We end up having both versions of *flink-some-scala-B* in our project. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-07-03 12:24 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org>: > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> I created a PR for this issue. [1] Please check and comment about the > PR. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Chiwan Park > >>> > >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/885 > >>> > >>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> @Alexander I’m happy to hear that you want to help me. If you help me, > >> I > >>> really appreciate. :) > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Chiwan Park > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Alexander Alexandrov < > >>> alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> @Chiwan: let me know if you need hands-on support. I'll be more then > >>> happy to help (as my downstream project is using Scala 2.11). > >>>>> > >>>>> 2015-07-01 17:43 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org>: > >>>>> Okay, I will apply this suggestion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Chiwan Park > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 01 Jul 2015, at 10:34, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1, like that approach > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I like that this is not breaking for non-Scala users :-) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
