Hi, I'm against cancelling a release for something that is not nice ;) It has to be at least broken to cancel :)
I agree that the pom looks complicated and I would love to do it better, but in my opinion the current approach is giving our users the best out of the box experience. The right approach of creating a Flink fat jar would be using the maven-shade-plugin with the Flink dependencies set to "provided". This way we tell the shade plugin that it can assume the core flink code to be available. So there is no need to package those classes into the fat-jar. The problem is that IntelliJ is not adding "provided" classes into the classpath when importing the pom. So IntelliJ users will not be able to run Flink jobs out of the IDE. That's why the Flink dependencies are in the default scope. The exclusions are in the maven-shade-plugin to reduce the jar size as much as possible. But there is also a maven profile to set the Flink dependencies to provided, making the resulting jar as small as possible. By the way, it is not possible to just exclude everything from "org.apache.flink", because a) users sometimes put their code into that package, so we would exclude the code b) Libraries like Gelly of Flink ML are also in the "org.apache.flink" namespace but not provided on the server. There is an ongoing discussion in IntelliJ's issue tracker whether to change the behavior: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-107048 Best, Robert On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@icloud.com> wrote: > Is it okay when the user runs the built jar in LocalEnvironment? (Just run > with `java -jar` command.) > I know that it is special case but it is a possible scenario for local > testing. > > If we change Quickstart POM to use provided scope for dependencies, we > should add a guide about this into document. > > Regards, > Chiwan Park > > > On Jun 19, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I'm also for simplification but let's hear what those who put the > build-jar > > profile there have to say about it.? > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 at 17:25 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 18 Jun 2015, at 16:58, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Why? > >>> > >>> mvn package > >>> > >>> builds the program correctly, no? > >> > >> Yes, but: > >> > >> - Dependencies not specified by the user may be included (Metrics, > >> javaassist) > >> - Dependencies specified by the user may be excluded > >> - If you use the build-jar profile you have to understand what the > >> difference to the default profile is and then you have to include your > >> dependencies again for the profile > >> - The pom comments are confusing > > > > >
