On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Separate jar does mean separate maven artifact but the dependency > mechanism should handle that and the new artifacts should be very stable. > agreed. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org > >wrote: > > > >> We've collected a fair bit of Hadoop utils over the years. I am finding > >> them generally useful in other projects. Would it make sense to either > >> split them out to a standalone jar and/or donate them upstream to Hadoop > >> itself? > >> > >> I'm thinking the things like: > >> Seq File iterators and potentially the SeqFileDumper too > >> AbstractJob and related > >> > >> My gut preference is that we maintain ownership of them but pub them in > a > >> separate JAR. > >> > > > > +1 > > > > And as many of the non-business-logic-coupled *Writables, as we've > > discussed before (I think there's even a ticket open for this part). > > > > Separate jar means separate maven artifact, right? I think that breaking > > things up a little has a few negatives (requires people to depend on more > > things, often), but positives outweigh them (people can depend on only > the > > things they need, and code gets shared more widely, more adoption, > etc...). > > > > -jake >
