Github user mcfongtw commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4545#discussion_r133404126
--- Diff: flink-connectors/flink-connector-cassandra/pom.xml ---
@@ -83,6 +85,10 @@ under the License.
<exclude>com.google.inject.**</exclude>
</excludes>
</relocation>
+ <relocation>
+
<pattern>io.netty</pattern>
+
<shadedPattern>org.apache.flink.shaded.netty4.io.netty</shadedPattern>
--- End diff --
Thanks for your review and reply! I see your points now, and I still have a
few questions to the shading approach though:
1. There seems to be some policies for making shadedPattern for different
scenarios. Would there be any external documents that possibly address these
rules?
2. It is obvious to shade a *direct dependency, since we need it to be free
of class clashes. How would we decide which *indirect dependencies to be shaded?
3. The benefit of shading is clear, but wouldn't it increase the jar file
size if there are more dependencies that need to be managed later on - also the
effort of managing the including/relocation rules.
I will update another version of PR later. Thanks!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
