I cannot find talking about pure/non-pure java distinction in the documentation.
I defined the rules about artifact id to apply modules by only Scala version not pure/non-pure java. The modules without suffix `_2.11` means that they are linked with Scala 2.10 binary. If I misunderstood your sentence or missed the talking in documentation, please notify me. Regards, Chiwan Park > On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Alexander Alexandrov > <alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>
