[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3631?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14344131#comment-14344131
]
Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-3631:
--------------------------------------
bq. because it does also represent a change in security expectations in a
bugfix release
Can you explain why you think this is given my original point in this thread?
Any risk at all is a blocker to you? I don't really agree for the
aforementioned reason that hitting the default value implies a lack of concern
WRT the classpath completely.
> Exclude 'slf4j' artifacts from classpath in default value for
> general.classpaths
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3631
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3631
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0, 1.6.1, 1.6.2
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Assignee: Josh Elser
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.7.0, 1.6.3
>
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Was testing out some Ambari integration for Accumulo that [~billie.rinaldi]
> and [~mwaineo] have been working on (AMBARI-5265) and found that, despite
> accumulo-site.xml having jars starting with slf4j excluded from the
> classpath, the shell would complain about duplicate slf4j-log4j12 jars on the
> classpath.
> Turns out, because access to accumulo-site.xml was restricted (and we only
> had client.conf to use), we fell back on the default value for
> general.classpaths defined in AccumuloClassLoader. A short-term fix is to
> update the value there to match what's in our site template.
> I'll add another issue for a long term fix to add classpath support to client
> configuration.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
