+1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application currently with Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying e.g. to EC2 is a pain.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this > release already? > > I would postpone it to 1.0.0. > > – Ufuk > > > On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven since > > more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. Having the > > dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably easier for > > people to get their Flink jobs running. > > > > Furthermore, I observed that people are not aware that our deployed > > artifacts, e.g. flink-runtime, are built with Scala 2.10. As a > consequence, > > they mix flink dependencies with other dependencies pulling in Scala 2.11 > > and then they wonder that the program crashes. It would be, imho, clearer > > if all our dependencies which depend on a specific Scala version would > have > > the corresponding Scala suffix appended. > > > > Adding the 2.10 suffix would also spare us the hassle of upgrading to a > > newer Scala version in the future, because then the artifacts wouldn't > > share the same artifact name. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Flinksters, > >> > >> We have recently committed an easy way to change Flink's Scala version. > The > >> question arises now whether we should ship Scala 2.11 as binaries and > via > >> Maven. For the rc0, I created all binaries twice, for Scala 2.10 and > 2.11. > >> However, I didn't create Maven artifacts. This follows our current > shipping > >> strategy where we only ship Hadoop1 and Hadoop 2.3.0 Maven dependencies > but > >> additionally Hadoop 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 as binaries. > >> > >> Should we also upload Maven dependencies for Scala 2.11? > >> > >> If so, the next question arises: What version pattern should we have for > >> the Flink Scala 2.11 dependencies? For Hadoop, we append -hadoop1 to the > >> VERSION, e.g. artifactID=flink-core, version=0.9.1-hadoop1. > >> > >> However, it is common practice to append the suffix to the artifactID of > >> the Maven dependency, e.g. artifactID=flink-core_2.11, version=0.9.1. > This > >> has mostly historic reasons but is widely used. > >> > >> Whatever naming pattern we choose, it should be consistent. I would be > in > >> favor of changing our artifact names to contain the Hadoop and Scala > >> version. This would also imply that all Scala dependent Maven modules > >> receive a Scala suffix (also the default Scala 2.10 modules). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Max > >> > >
