I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Why exactly do you think specifying the scope as provided makes sense?
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > The provided make sense for hadoop to pick up dependencies. To a less > extent, it makes sense for ZK. > > However, as someone who is using accumulo for a project, I would love to > have a client library that is as sparse as possible to avoid having to deal > with resource conflicts. > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Joey Echeverria > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Do Accumulo users need Hadoop or it's dependencies in order to use the >> client APIs? >> >> The only client API that I could see needing it would be the >> [In|Out]putFormats, but it'd be cool if that was a separate module and >> that module had the appropriate Hadoop dependencies with the compile >> scope. >> >> -Joey >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > What's the latest opinion whether things should be marked "provided" in >> the pom? >> > I've changed my mind on this a few times, myself, so I'm curious what >> > others think. >> > >> > The provided scope means that it will not propagate as a transitive >> > dependency. Other than that, it doesn't do much... though we can >> > control packaging based on provided or not. >> > >> > I'm not sure this gets us much, and it's inconvenient for users. We >> > can control packaging in other ways (like being more explicit and >> > carefully considering which dependencies we include in an RPM or >> > tarball, for instance). >> > >> > If we drop its declaration, what this means, is that if users want to >> > build with Accumulo as a dependency, but against a different version >> > of Hadoop than what we declare in our POM, they'll have to explicitly >> > <exclude> the hadoop dependencies, and redeclare them, or they will >> > have to use their <dependencyManagement> section to force a particular >> > dependency of hadoop. >> > >> > The advantage to users, though, if we drop this, is that they won't >> > have to constantly re-declare transitive dependencies to get their >> > projects to build/test/run. >> > >> > See http://s.apache.org/maven-dependency-scopes >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > -- >> > Christopher L Tubbs II >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>
