I will try running the Code. WIsh we had the mahotu script ready. Robin
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Sean <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah Drew has a good point on JCL -- it uses this unorthodox but > clever system wherein you compile against generic SLF4J APIs (that's > the -api.jar) and then add an implementation .jar of your choice which > actually binds to a particular logging system (that's the other one). > The latter is not needed at compile time but needed at runtime. If we > can express that in Maven, good. If it's necessary to call it a > compile-time dependency for it to be included, OK. > > I don't know about the others. In theory if they are needed indirectly > (by one of our direct dependencies) then that dependency will have it > included. > > Could we recklessly try taking it out and see what happens, unless > someone's sure it's not going to fly? > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But the whole thing is compiling without those jars. Are you sure. Let me > > dig deep into the code. Instantiating class purely by reflection without > > even a single import will cause errors then > > > > Robin > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Drew Farris <drew.far...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> The dependency:analyze reports can't be trusted 100% because some of > >> the jars are used at runtime. > >> > >> For example, I recently discovered that > >> org.slf4j:slf4j-jcl:jar:1.5.8:compile is necessary for proper logging > >> when running in mvn exec:java -- I suspect that commons-logging is > >> needed as well because the slf4jcl (jcl = jakarta commons logging) is > >> a wrapper for commons logging. > >> > >> The alternative would be to use another wrapper entirely, but I > >> believe some of our deps use commons-logging so that could likely lead > >> to a mess. > >> > >> Also, IIRC, The jets3t stuff was added back into examples recently to > >> support MAHOUT-249 > >> > >> The google collections stuff was recently added too, I can't remember > >> what for however. > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Kicked direct dependencies. Current Job jar size is 12MB as compared > to > >> 14MB > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Sean <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Seems OK to me. I mean, if it doesn't work, we'll know immediately, > so > >> >> little harm. > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > Take a look at the maven dependency:analyze output > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
