calcite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Avatica includes jackson in the jar
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:09:09 GMT
I have logged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1021 for the “upgrade” part
of this issue. When we come to consensus on shading that could be another JIRA case.

Drill, Hive, Samza, Storm, and other stakeholders: Please chime in on that issue if a Jackson
upgrade would break you.

Julian
 

> On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For the avatica (client) jar, it's meant to be a single distributable artifact, but I
could see value in providing both a shaded and non-shaded jar, letting the user decide which
one they want.
> 
> It will force us to be much clearer about what the dependency needs of the Avatica client
are.
> 
> Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Frankly, just using provided scope and requiring version 2.* might be a
>> better course.
>> 
>> This would particularly be true if any of the Jackson classes are used in
>> any API's.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
>>> Yup, you're spot-on with relocation the classes. I only relocated the
>>> protobuf classes because I had just added them. Didn't think to also do
>>> that with the Jackson classes. Really, anything that gets shaded should be,
>>> AFAIK. Want to open a JIRA issue?
>>> 
>>> As for updating Jackson, I'd have to look at the changelog. It's probably
>>> going to be OK, but you never know what issues might sneak in when updating
>>> the dependency. A JIRA issue for this would also be good.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for letting us know!
>>> 
>>> - Josh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike Hinchey wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'm have difficulty building my project which uses both calcite and
>>>> another
>>>> lib that uses a different version of fasterxml/jackson.
>>>> 
>>>> I found that avatica builds an uberjar, using mvn-shade to rename the
>>>> protobuf package, but also includes the jackson classes in the jar.  This
>>>> is the case since 1.5.0, not before.  Is that intentional?
>>>> 
>>>> Should the jackson packages also be renamed/shaded within avatica?
>>>> 
>>>> Incidentally, jackson 2.1.1 is from 2012.  The latest stable release is
>>>> 2.6.3.  All tests pass with the new version.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message