Hi Helmut, I wrote a small Perl script to identify dependency conflicts based on output from mvn dependency:tree and posted it here: https://gist.github.com/ mpercy/39614d770864bdd0c386befd5e8a1840
I ran that on the current trunk and it actually found some errors which should be fixed: Version conflict: package com.google.guava:guava:jar needed in 2 different versions: (11.0.2, 18.0) Version conflict: package commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient:jar needed in 2 different versions: (3.0.1, 3.1) Version conflict: package commons-logging:commons-logging:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.1.3, 1.2) Version conflict: package commons-pool:commons-pool:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.5.4, 1.6) Version conflict: package net.sf.jopt-simple:jopt-simple:jar needed in 2 different versions: (3.2, 4.7) Version conflict: package org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.8.3, 1.8.8) ERROR: 6 package version conflicts identified However, after applying your patch on top of trunk and running it again, it identified new conflicts: Version conflict: package com.google.guava:guava:jar needed in 2 different versions: (11.0.2, 18.0) Version conflict: package commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient:jar needed in 2 different versions: (3.0.1, 3.1) Version conflict: package commons-logging:commons-logging:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.1.3, 1.2) Version conflict: package commons-pool:commons-pool:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.5.4, 1.6) Version conflict: package net.sf.jopt-simple:jopt-simple:jar needed in 3 different versions: (3.2, 4.7, 5.0.2) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-analyzers-common:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-core:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-grouping:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-highlighter:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-memory:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-misc:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-queries:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-queryparser:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-spatial:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.apache.lucene:lucene-suggest:jar needed in 2 different versions: (4.3.0, 7.1.0) Version conflict: package org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.8.3, 1.8.8) Version conflict: package org.yaml:snakeyaml:jar needed in 2 different versions: (1.10, 1.17) ERROR: 17 package version conflicts identified So while it appears Guava is no longer a concern, there are other conflicting dependencies involved in the conflict here. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Regards, Mike On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Wahrmann, Helmut <helmut.wahrm...@rsa.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for the quick response. > > I fully agree that we need to take care about interop between the > different components and dependencies. > But if you look at the patch in FLUME-3021, it only puts in Elasticsearch > dependencies. > > The issue with Guava, which you saw in FLUME-2921 is no longer there, > because since mid-2016 a lot has changed in the Flume trunk and all those > dependencies are fixed. > It won't even be possible gto apply this patch anymore. > > The patch in FLUME-3021 works with the latest Elasticsearch versions, > without introducing additional dependencies, which might cause problems to > other projects. > So I think it can be safely merged into trunk. > > best regards, > > Helmut > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Percy [mailto:mpe...@apache.org] > Sent: Dienstag, 23. Jänner 2018 20:39 > To: dev@flume.apache.org > Subject: Re: Merging to trunk? > > Hi Helmut, > Thank you for bringing this up on dev@ and thank you for the patch. I see > there are other people people interested in this component upgrade as well. > > As you are probably aware, a Flume committer will need to approve the > change before I gets merged to trunk. > > My primary concern w/ merging this would be compatibility of the > dependencies. Flume suffers from a kind of a "dependency hell" because of a > lack of classloading support (either via OSGI or Java modules). See > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-2293 for a tracking ticket > about that issue. What that means is that all of the components that Flume > ships must have compatible dependencies with each other which makes changes > like this more complex. Therefore I would like someone to verify that mvn > dependency:tree does not show conflicts when run from the top level with > the new patches. If memory serves, I believe Google Guava is likely to > conflict. > > Also, I think that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-3021 is a > duplicate of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-2921 which has > additional information about the various issues that we need to solve to do > this upgrade. > > I'd be happy to discuss this issue some more on this thread. > > Mike > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Wahrmann, Helmut < > helmut.wahrm...@rsa.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Who decides if/when a patch or pull request gets merged to trunk? > > Reason I am asking is for the Elasticsearch support. The current code > > in trunk does not work with ES > 2.x. > > Currently Elasticsearch is at 6.1. > > > > In FLUME-3021 we have several patches since March last year. > > I have a patched Flume running at a customer since April last year > > without any problems. > > > > So why not merging those changes into the trunk? > > As I stated in my comment in FLUME-3021, it will not cause any > > problems, cause the current trunk won't work with newer ES versions > anyhow. > > I doubt that someone is out there still running ES 0.95. > > > > best regards, > > > > Helmut > > >
