I checked and pig 0.11 doesn't have -useHCatalog, says the online help.
However, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-2766 says its been
backported all the way to 0.9.

I'll ask the pig folks today and see if they know what's going on. Agreed,
if its really easy to use HCatalog from pig with this command-line flag,
the primary motivation (ease of use) is still satisfied and I think we
could ditch the fat jar.

--travis


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote:

> Newer pig versions have the -useHCatalog flag (PIG-2766) which adds the
> jar to the pig job. Rohini looked through the source code and verified in
> the pig run script that it adds all the jars prefixed with "hacatalog-". So
> for these versions it should be a non-issue which makes dropping the fat
> jar a non-issue IMHO.  Though it'd be great to verify this, we internally
> don't use the open source pig run script, can anyone volunteer to try this
> out? Thoughts?
>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Travis Crawford <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The reason we didn't do that initially when moving to submodules was
> > due to backwards compatibility concerns, since users need to register
> > an additional jar in their pig scripts.
> >
> > I think the earlier we ditch the fat jar and get artifacts in maven
> > central the better. That's really going to make this easier to use and
> > drive adoption.
> >
> > --travis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm fixing our published maven poms so users can retrieve the submodule
> jars properly in HCATALOG-543. As part of that task I had to remove the
> creation and publishing of the fat hcatalog jar since it is using the same
> artifact name as the parent pom. Given that we haven't had a release
> publishing the fat jar in maven would it be ok to publishing? If not then
> I'll can probably try using a different name for the parent pom (ie
> hcatalog-base) which seems to add to the mess.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> -Francis
>
>

Reply via email to