laurentgo commented on code in PR #43139:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/43139#discussion_r1669007746
##########
java/flight/flight-core/pom.xml:
##########
@@ -175,6 +177,13 @@ under the License.
<include>com.google.protobuf:*</include>
</includes>
</artifactSet>
+ <filters>
+ <filter>
+ <excludes>
+ <exclude>**/module-info.class</exclude>
Review Comment:
Maybe I should open a separate issue/pull request? I tried to analyze how
many shaded artifacts are generated and how many are used.
Here's the list of shaded artifacts:
- arrow-tools-{version}-jar-with-dependencies.jar
- flight-sql-jdbc-driver-{version}.jar
- flight-integration-tests-{version}-jar-with-dependencies.jar
- flight-core-{version}-shaded.jar
- flight-core-{version}-shaded-ext.jar
- flight-core-{version}-jar-with-dependencies.jar
- arrow-performance-{version}-benchmarks.jar
- arrow-vector-{version}-shade-format-flatbuffers
`arrow-vector` is used by other modules to not expose `flatbuffers`
directly.
I can also see `arrow-tools`/`flight-integration-tests` used by some tests
defined in `dev/tasks.yml`, and `arrow-perfornance` uber jar is common for
people who wants to run jmh from commandline: those shaded jars are useful and
I do not expect that we need modularization for those jars
The jdbc driver is shaded because people expect it to be self contained. It
could benefit from having its own module-info.java which would only allow
exposes the driver + public api, but all relocated classes would be not
accessible.
Finally there are all the `flight-core` shaded jars and I haven't figured
out if they are used or not
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
