Newer pig versions have the -useHCatalog flag (PIG-2766) which adds the jar to the pig job. Rohini looked through the source code and verified in the pig run script that it adds all the jars prefixed with "hacatalog-". So for these versions it should be a non-issue which makes dropping the fat jar a non-issue IMHO. Though it'd be great to verify this, we internally don't use the open source pig run script, can anyone volunteer to try this out? Thoughts?
On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Travis Crawford <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason we didn't do that initially when moving to submodules was > due to backwards compatibility concerns, since users need to register > an additional jar in their pig scripts. > > I think the earlier we ditch the fat jar and get artifacts in maven > central the better. That's really going to make this easier to use and > drive adoption. > > --travis > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm fixing our published maven poms so users can retrieve the submodule jars >> properly in HCATALOG-543. As part of that task I had to remove the creation >> and publishing of the fat hcatalog jar since it is using the same artifact >> name as the parent pom. Given that we haven't had a release publishing the >> fat jar in maven would it be ok to publishing? If not then I'll can probably >> try using a different name for the parent pom (ie hcatalog-base) which seems >> to add to the mess. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Francis
