Hah! Go figure, SGTM. Thanks, Julian.
If you don't plan on working on the shading change, Kai, feel free to
assign the JIRA issue to me when you create it. Thanks, again.
Julian Hyde wrote:
> Calcite core/pom.xml uses Jackson but doesn’t have an explicit dependency. You removed
the explicit dependency 6 months ago in https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/cb7c213<https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/cb7c213>.
>
> When we further separate Avatica from Calcite maybe we’ll revisit how core gets its
Jackson.
>
> Julian
>
>
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (being lazy -- sorry) Does Calcite rely on the Jackson coming in from Avatica now?
Or is it purely just there because of the shading?
>>
>> Julian Hyde wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable to have a maven profile that uses jackson as “provided”[1]
rather than shading? This would not be the default — the default would be continue to use
a shaded version of jackson (relocated to org.apache.calcite.jackson, as Josh suggests) —
but folks looking to embed calcite/avatica in a container might appreciate a lighter weight
option.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6646959/difference-between-maven-scope-compile-and-provided-for-jar-packaging<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6646959/difference-between-maven-scope-compile-and-provided-for-jar-packaging>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kai,
>>>>
>>>> Avatica includes Jackson for the JSON parser (one of the serialization mechanisms
that Avatica uses). The Avatica client is designed to be a single-artifact to make deployments
for users very simple.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, since we're shading in Jackson, we should relocate it to
avoid problems for you downstream in Calcite "proper". Want to open a JIRA issue? Thanks for
bringing it up.
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>> Kai Gülzau wrote:
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>
>>>>> what’s the reason for including the whole Jackson jar inside the avatica
jar?
>>>>> We are just using the calcite sql parser and are using a newer version
of Jackson as included in avatica.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result we can’t use the newer functionality of Jackson since the
included version is used :-\
>>>>>
>>>>> From my point of view it doesn’t make sense to include Jackson (with
the normal package path) when it is also a compile dependency…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I have read it correctly in an older post
>>>>> “When we come to consensus on shading that could be another JIRA case.”
>>>>> It time to open a JIRA case?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kai
>>>
>
>
|