[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16869189#comment-16869189
]
Ji Liu commented on ARROW-5579:
-------------------------------
[[email protected]] The revert PR is merged, I opened a new
PR([https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4629]) and the travis has pass.
However, IED issue seems not always work with work-around. I think we still
need do some work before it can be merged.
If there is no reasonable solution, then we should discuss in mailing list to
see if anyone has some different thoughts.
Thanks!
> [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: 3h 10m
> 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)
