Alexandre,

I think we tend to assume people use a dependency management tool:
https://storm.apache.org/releases/2.0.0-SNAPSHOT/Maven.html

The easiest way for you to get a list of the jars that need to be on the
classpath is to make a dummy Maven project, add the snippet I linked to the
POM, and then use the dependency plugin to get a list of dependencies (do
"mvn dependency:list" in the project root). You could also run that command
from the storm-client directory in the Storm source.

Regarding which dependencies you should have, the link snippet is enough
for a production jar. If you are running tests using a LocalCluster, you
will also need to have storm-server on the test classpath.

Neither jar should be included in your fat jar. Storm puts them on the
classpath when you deploy to a cluster.

Den ons. 1. maj 2019 kl. 09.30 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
[email protected]>:

> Hello,
>
> I tried to rebuild my topologies with 2.0, but I hit a first trivial
> issue: I used to rely on storm-core-<version>.jar in our classpath to
> resolve Storm API dependencies, but storm-core-2.0.0.jar doesn't seem
> to contain anymore classes like org.apache.storm.task.OutputCollector
> which is used in our topologies' code.
>
> I did a "grep org.apache.storm.task.OutputCollector <storm lib
> directory>" and found that this kind of classes are now in
> storm-client-2.0.0.jar
>
> I'm OK to change my dependencies, but then, to avoid other people
> falling into this trap, couldn't Storm 2.0.0 documentation tell which
> are the build-time dependencies?
>
> I also need to know whether or not my BigJars must embed
> storm-client.2.0.0.jar (we use to embed storm-core-<version>.jar in
> our BigJar)
>
> Kind regards,
> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>
> Le mar. 30 avr. 2019 à 23:49, Roshan Naik
> <[email protected]> a écrit :
> >
> >  Yes, you need to rebuild your topology jars against 2.0.
> > If you have some settings to tweak perf with 1.x,  refer to
> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/master/docs/Performance.md for the
> 2.x configs.
> >
> >     On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 2:41:49 PM PDT, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hello,
> >
> > I'm eager to test Storm 2.0.0 with my complex topologies, but first of
> > all: do I need to rebuild all my topologies' Big Jars with Storm
> > 2.0.0, or may I try my existing Storm 1.2.3 (recent snapshot)-based
> > Big Jars ?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >
> > Le mar. 30 avr. 2019 à 00:49, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> a
> écrit :
> > >
> > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0 (rc7)
> > >
> > > Full list of changes in this release:
> > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc7/RELEASE_NOTES.html
> > >
> > > The tag/commit to be voted upon is v2.0.0:
> > >
> > >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=007863edd95e838b3df414928c6fa3f28244ab49;hb=2ba95bbd1c911d4fc6363b1c4b9c4c6d86ac9aae
> > >
> > > The source archive being voted upon can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc7/apache-storm-2.0.0-src.tar.gz
> > >
> > > Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here:
> > >
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-2.0.0-rc7/
> > >
> > > The release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > >
> > >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd
> > >
> > > The Nexus staging repository for this release is:
> > >
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestorm-1079
> > >
> > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release.
> > >
> > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 2.0.0
> > > [ ]  0 No opinion
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > >
> > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release.
> > >
> > > -Taylor
>

Reply via email to