[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16868315#comment-16868315
]
Micah Kornfield commented on ARROW-5579:
----------------------------------------
[~tianchen92] I think the second approach sounds better to me, the lack of
intellij support is unfortunate. I started working on this on a branch of my
own https://github.com/emkornfield/arrow/tree/shade but I am running into a
compilation issue with Flight, not sure if you have gotten past that on your
branch?
I think the first thing we should do is revert the initial PR, can you submit a
PR for that?
> [Java] shade flatbuffer dependency
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-5579
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5579
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Java
> Reporter: Pindikura Ravindra
> Assignee: Ji Liu
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 0.14.0
>
> Time Spent: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Reported in a [github issue|[https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/4489]]
>
> After some [discussion|https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/issues/5368]
> with the Flatbuffers maintainer, it appears that FB generated code is not
> guaranteed to be compatible with _any other_ version of the runtime library
> other than the exact same version of the flatc used to compile it.
> This makes depending on flatbuffers in a library (like arrow) quite risky, as
> if an app depends on any other version of FB, either directly or
> transitively, it's likely the versions will clash at some point and you'll
> see undefined behaviour at runtime.
> Shading the dependency looks to me the best way to avoid this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
