[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14261461#comment-14261461
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on MAHOUT-1636:
----------------------------------------

Github user pferrel commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/mahout/pull/69#issuecomment-68395014
  
    Hmm, not using shade and not doing any of the more funky things it 
supports. I guess you are talking about creating a trimmed down all-deps jar 
(using the assembly maven plugin)? 
    
    Are you asking to exclude Mahout too? That would make the jar nothing more 
than lib-managed, right? It would be quite easy to do. The jar would still need 
to be a release artifact. And we would still have a huge list of jars to search 
in "mahout classpath -spark".
    
    I'm **not** a build engineer so if someone has a better way of doing this 
please speak up.


> Class dependencies for the spark module are put in a job.jar, which is very 
> inefficient
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MAHOUT-1636
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1636
>             Project: Mahout
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: spark
>    Affects Versions: 1.0-snapshot
>            Reporter: Pat Ferrel
>            Assignee: Ted Dunning
>             Fix For: 1.0-snapshot
>
>
> using a maven plugin and an assembly job.xml a job.jar is created with all 
> dependencies including transitive ones. This job.jar is in 
> mahout/spark/target and is included in the classpath when a Spark job is run. 
> This allows dependency classes to be found at runtime but the job.jar include 
> a great deal of things not needed that are duplicates of classes found in the 
> main mrlegacy job.jar.  If the job.jar is removed, drivers will not find 
> needed classes. A better way needs to be implemented for including class 
> dependencies.
> I'm not sure what that better way is so am leaving the assembly alone for 
> now. Whoever picks up this Jira will have to remove it after deciding on a 
> better method.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to