From general-return-44452-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Mar 26 00:45:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D839610DD9 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14972 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2014 00:45:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14709 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2014 00:45:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14701 invoked by uid 99); 26 Mar 2014 00:45:16 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:45:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-yh0-f53.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username jamestaylor, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:45:16 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v1so1392569yhn.26 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:45:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=dh93UYPa+HWEhp1E+PHPc2+ow2cuScNjEh+uCBwRlPM=; b=Xg3+ykzpUERIkinA6o7fe6Ta1mw/FpdM5DMvt44Y+GlhRdUfwu1eL0s+aAm/Y56tFU SHhmDSkeYnyz4We/yLpqE8Mjz72+yKsiuI3TGTFREApJSUXIybeNCePMbumJBza5+CMR FFWh1cPEo6CpAgO4HOK2dNCu1yeu9TdrbCElcQgCGLY/Mk3nBt3DVzdA5qEvTLcaG5rD nbDBlUDiajewqyBmPmR2iWl8IZ8gIwLaXx8pqxn7/jDiKyj6Dk1UoWM58zNQ0mg7HU6S 3c/AY+VZ3UWcwhR4tsZlHsMXEo5LhY3qkesSomOW9HOLewPWM76ffIgzTS9xm9t1GiIQ TnyQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.86.226 with SMTP id w62mr16290997yhe.94.1395794715280; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.195.68 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:45:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:45:15 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1 From: James Taylor To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba475db92f0aad04f577c83b --90e6ba475db92f0aad04f577c83b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other > items > > > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've > > > bundled in our binary distribution. > > > > I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. > > They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - > > and indeed also contain phoenix code. > > > > That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could > > mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. > > > > It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming > > licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party > > code with ASF code in a single jar. > > Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly > > other dependency management systems. > > > I believe this is done because Phoenix is a JDBC client, and JDBC drivers > are usually packaged as single JARs for convenience. James could confirm or > refute. I concluded this is acceptable practice having seen it elsewhere at > Apache, for example in Apache Pig, their convenience fatjar artifact. > > Yes, that's correct. It's because then a third-party tool (such as a SQL client GUI) then only need to pull in a single jar to be able to connect through the Phoenix JDBC driver to HBase. Our initial (pre-Apache) releases didn't do this and it was almost impossible to get the classpath correct for the "minimal" client-side dependencies. So the remaining question: should we spin up a new RC for these changes and if so, should we go through a vote again on our dev list as well? Thanks again for all the help. James --90e6ba475db92f0aad04f577c83b--