> Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? Not that I know of. I couldn't find "bom" in their artifacts [1, 2].
[1]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.flink [2]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.spark On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:46 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 and you have phrased the benefits and limitations well. We have plenty > of not-Google-related dependencies that use Guava and protobuf (I know of > Calcite, Cassandra, Kinesis, and Spark) so there's still work in managing > deps, but the BOM should make it a lot easier to upgrade all these tightly > coupled libraries that Google ships from their head. > > Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? I wonder if there's an opportunity to catch > incompatible deps at a larger scale by comparing and merging a half dozen > BOMs (although in the limit it approximately expands to one per runner and > one per IO and projects mature and become independent) > > Kenn > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:05 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > >> How would the Apache Beam BOM and GCP BOM work together? >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:25 AM Filipe Regadas <filiperega...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Big +1, this is a step in the right direction and checking with other >>> Beam's direct and transitive deps is crucial since the referred bom only >>> convers a small part of it. Apache Commons, Jackson, `com.google.{api, >>> apis, cloud}`, slf4j comes to mind. >>> >>> Filipe Regadas >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:33 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 Sounds like a good improvement for users and maintainers ! >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:59 AM Alex Van Boxel <a...@vanboxel.be> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1, I can remember the countless hours that we fought with Google >>>> dependencies. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 04:07 Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> +1 for this. >>>> >> >>>> >> This will make life easy for many of our users and will help us keep >>>> GCP related dependencies compatible (which has not been easy in the past). >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:16 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Beam developers, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Shall we use GCP Libraries BOM [1] to specify the Google-related >>>> library versions in Beam? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I've been working on Beam's dependency upgrades in the past few >>>> months. It's time to consider a long-term solution to keep the libraries >>>> up-to-date with small maintenance effort. To achieve that, I propose Beam >>>> to use GCP Libraries BOM to set the Google-related library versions, rather >>>> than the current way of making changes in each of ~30 Google libraries with >>>> individual PRs [2]. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> After the proposal is implemented, Beam project upgrades the BOM >>>> version to upgrade these Google-related libraries. This still needs to >>>> ensure the libraries in GCP Library BOM are compatible with Beam's other >>>> dependencies. (Linkage Checker will help with this job.) I believe >>>> onboarding GCP Libraries BOM will solve lots of incompatibilities which we >>>> have seen in gax, gRPC, google-cloud-core, and so on with minimal effort in >>>> Beam's developers. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Created an issue to track this: BEAM-9444 [3]. I appreciate if you >>>> can share questions or feedback (thumbs-up / concerns). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [1]: >>>> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-opensource-java/wiki/The-Google-Cloud-Platform-Libraries-BOM >>>> >>> [2]: >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asuztomo >>>> >>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9444 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> Tomo >>>> >>> -- Regards, Tomo
