Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
No I meant we are publishing a new artifact which has relocated
dependencies.
You can refer below to see how Flink addressed this.
https://github.com/apache/flink-shaded
---
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
I think "option 2" is good for Storm 2.0 and it may be ok have the users
rebuild their topologies that relies on storm-druid and use the relocated
package names. With "option 4", users have to
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
4. publish "a" shaded artifact which shades and relocates error-prone
artifacts
I proposed 4 in discussion thread, and now Flink is leveraging 4. I was
worrying about LICENSE issue (beca
Github user revans2 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
@arunmahadevan
I think we are all on the same page here. All I am saying is that this
patch by itself does not fix STORM-2881 for 2.x and as such I don't want it to
go in as is, we need to
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
@revans2 , the latest version of tranquility-core available is 0.8.2 which
has this curator 2.6.0 transitive dependency.
I think the storm-druid unit tests would use the 2.6.0 version
Github user revans2 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
This patch is problematic without shading. With this the unit tests will
run with a different version of curator from how it will run in production. So
it ends up being a NOOP with masking errors i
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
Maybe we could file a blocker issue for Storm 2.0.0 and allow this patch.
Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2882 for that.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
It doesn't represent we decided to not relocate. We just didn't decide it,
and it should be done within releasing 2.0.0.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-storm-dev/201703.mbox/%3ccaf5108gjjqzsyywcp99bgpgec7tufe-tbt9fi0m78ah8rkm...@mail.gmail.com%3E
You can follow up the discussion to see
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
@HeartSaVioR , any reason why we dont relocate in 2.0.0 vs 1.x ? If not
users would hit issues with conflicting versions (like curator).
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
In master branch we don't relocate any dependencies so it will make
conflict anyway. Looks like this case represents that we should have a solution
for 2.0.0 sooner.
---
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2498
ping @omkreddy , @HeartSaVioR
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
