-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 991
Remove provided optional configs #1452
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
jbaiera
merged 8 commits into
elastic:master
from
jbaiera:remove-provided-optional-configs
Apr 22, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1745f61
Remove provided and optional configurations.
jbaiera 05f32d8
Update scripts to use api/implementation configs
jbaiera f8af462
Remove usage of propdeps plugin
jbaiera 14a50ba
Add notice, license, and sha files for old provided deps
jbaiera dd6c590
Fix Spark 2.x tags dependency
jbaiera 1de829c
Merge branch 'master' into remove-provided-optional-configs
jbaiera bd3df3e
Convert as much as we can into implementation dependencies.
jbaiera b6d5dfc
PR Feedback
jbaiera File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
5043bfebc3db072ed80fbd362e7caf00e885d8ae |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How are we handling this now? The generated POMs are going to be different now. Dependencies that were previously marked as optional are now going to be brought in by consumers by default. Is this fine or expected behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We used optional primarily in two places:
First, in the spark projects where if you were only using RDD's then you didn't need to necessarily pull in the SQL libraries. That said, both core Spark and Spark SQL were listed as provided, and thus would always both be on the classpath if launching via spark-submit. In terms of a strict build footprint, this may affect those who are strictly avoiding SQL, though a decent amount of Spark development is done in live environments/notebooks/platforms. I don't expect this to be a widespread problem since those who are actively trying to avoid SQL should be able to ignore this dependency with their own build tools.
Second, in the project-wide pom, where we have the code for every integration. The expectation here I assume was that every integration was optional within the project-wide artifact, and thus each integration's dependency was marked as optional. This meant that you could pull in the root project's artifact for Spark and not need to pull in Pig dependencies. This might be the biggest issue to address for the removal of optional scope dependencies, but to work around this, we publish integration specific artifacts which provide isolation based on the supported integration for users who only want support for one integration.
In fact, I'm willing to have a discussion on whether or not the project-wide artifact is even needed. I believe that it is a nice getting started point where you can put in a simple dependency name to get support for any integration, but beyond getting started, most users are much better off using integration specific artifacts for their projects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right. Folks bringing this in will now need to explicitly exclude this dependency rather than explicitly include it. If you don't feel this is going to be terribly disruptive then 👍.
What is the "project-wide pom" and what specifically is its purpose? Would a BOM be a more appropriate solution if you want folks to be able to import a simple POM that defines things like common dependency versions?
FWIW, Gradle has support specifically for publishing BOMs. We can still provide this kind of thing, but in a more appropriate form than a POM that declares nothing but optional dependencies. This is better modeled with by the
<dependencyManagement>
block of a POM.https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/java_platform_plugin.html