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
>>
>>
|