On Thursday, June 18, 2015, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > I'm against cancelling a release for something that is not nice ;) It has > to be at least broken to cancel :) See vote thread +1. This was not about canceling but clearification. ;) > 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. Ok this is too bad :(
