I don't think that's acceptable. As you mentioned earlier, that is a large portion of what Parsons has contributed to Rya.
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Aaron D. Mihalik" <aaron.miha...@gmail.com> Date: 10/6/16 10:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: dev@rya.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Path forward for release After reviewing the PR that David submitted, it's concerning the number of projects that would fall into this "optional" bin. Some users probably consider these "core" functions (e.g. reasoning and web): Here the modules that need to be removed from the build in order to remove the geotools references: mapreduce indexing rya.indexing.pcj indexingExample rya.pcj.fluo tinkerpop.rya web.rya rya.reasoning rya.console rya.merger --Aaron On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:41 PM David Lotts <dlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, geotools is a runtime dependency. No geotools source code is > distributed. > > By that I mean: Geotools source code is not in our source code repository. > Only references: imports in our *.java files and dependencies entries in > our pom.xml. Because of this maven will package geotools JARs (binaries) > in our shaded/uber JAR and WAR files that we distribute. > > With option 1 or 2 as discussed, maven will exclude the geotools jars in > our JARs and WARs. Users of Rya can follow some instructions that we > provide to add "-P indexing" (or similar) to their Maven build command > create their own jar/war containing the optional Rya features and geotools > binaries. > > Your "you should be okay." mean which of these???? > A. option 1 and option 2 will work around the issue and we should proceed > before we release, > - OR - > B. We are already in compliance and this is not a blocker for release as > long as we are not redistributing geotools source code. > > Hopeful for interpretation B, but expecting and happy with A. > > david. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh <vseetha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Quick question - geotools is a runtime dependency? Are you shipping the > > source code? If not, you should be okay. > > > > Sent from my iPhone, > > Venkatesh > > > > > On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Puja Valiyil <puja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > Talking with Aaron, it seems like there were two paths forward for > > > refactoring in order to create a release. To refresh everyone's > memory, > > > the issue was that the geo-indexing extensions to Rya pull in geotools, > > > which prohibits us from releasing Rya under an Apache 2 license. There > > may > > > be some more particulars that I'm glossing over -- someone please chime > > in > > > if they feel it is key to the discussion. > > > The two paths forward we had were: > > > 1. Make all of the indexing project and its downstream dependencies > > > optional and exclude them from a release > > > -- The indexing project includes several "optional" extensions to Rya > > > (advanced indexing strategies). Prior to Rya becoming an apache > project, > > > these indexing extensions were optional and there was a separate > profile > > > for including them. This option involves reverting back to that > mindset. > > > The main argument against this is that these indexing > > strategies/extensions > > > are not in fact optional but are "core" to Rya and can't be excluded. > > > > > > 2. Refactor Rya to pull geoindexing into a separate project and > exclude > > > that project from the release. > > > - We could refactor Rya to have geoindexing be its own project and add > a > > > profile to include that in the build. This would invovle moving the > > class > > > mvm.rya.indexing.GeoIndexer and packages mem.rya.indexing.accumulo.geo > > and > > > mvm.rya.indexing.mongodb.geo to a separate project and then > > removing/moving > > > references to geoindexing anywhere else. Another option is to refactor > > the > > > GeoIndexer interface to remove the geotools dependency. > > > > > > I think #1 is a good immediate path for a release and that #2 is a good > > > longer term path forward. Since it's probably in our best interests > as a > > > community to get an apache release sooner rather than later, I'd rather > > us > > > go with #1 since it would quicker. I also think that most users of Rya > > > would be ok with excluding the indexing project since it is not core > > > functionality for Rya. While #2 is a better long term plan, it > involves > > > some pretty extensive refactoring that would be difficult to do well > in a > > > timely manner. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > >
