+1 on something like "taste-integration" as a module instead of the poorly named thing we have now.
On May 18, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > There's no web app in here, it's just code that imports MongoDB > classes. Yes it can be made 'provider' scope; it still means a lesser > overhead of downloading the dependency. (kfs has been removed BTW.) I > think we have the answer of farming this out to an 'integration' > module that was have already under the wrong name. > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't see a problem with an extra module if the webapp can somehow resolve >> the reference at run-time. >> >> And if the artifacts are in Maven, how bad is it to include them as >> dependencies? If these could be made optional dependencies with "provided" >> scope, then anybody who doesn't use them wouldn't notice the lack. Hadoop >> does this with kfs, for instance. Nobody uses kfs any more, but they could >> if they wanted and nobody else has to resolve the dependency. >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Weird as it sounds, I think the best place is mahout-taste-webapp. >>> Once the module is renamed it'll make more sense. But if you make a >>> patch against that module with the right pom.xml changes it ought to >>> be 99.9% what is needed. >>> >>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Fernando Tapia Rico >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> yep, I completely understand your concerns. So...What should I do? cos >>>> I guess that I need to know where to place this to open the JIRA >>>> ticket. I don't have any rush, I can wait until you guys decide what >>>> is the best option for this DataModel. >>> >> -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll Lucene Revolution -- Lucene and Solr User Conference May 25-26 in San Francisco www.lucenerevolution.org
