On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jerry He <[email protected]> wrote: > How is the proposed going to impact the existing shaded-client and > shaded-server modules, making them unnecessary and go away? >
No. We still need the blanket shading of hbase client and server. This effort is about our internals. We have a mess of other components all up inside us such as HDFS, etc., each with their own sets of dependencies many of which we have in common. This project t is about making it so we can upgrade at a rate independent of when our upstreamers choose to change. > It doesn't seem so. These modules are supposed to shade HBase and upstream > from downstream users. > Agree. Thanks for drawing out the difference between these two shading efforts, St.Ack > Thanks. > > Jerry > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Sean has suggested a pre-build step where in another repo we'd make > hbase > > > shaded versions of critical libs, 'release' them (votes, etc.) and then > > > have core depend on these. It be a bunch of work but would make the > dev's > > > life easier. > > > > So when we make changes that require updates to and rebuild of the > > supporting libraries, as a developer I would make local changes, install > a > > snapshot of that into the local maven cache, then point the HBase build > at > > the snapshot, then do the other half of the work, then push up to both? > > > > I think this could work. >
