Ah OK. Sorry, I misunderstood your intention. 2015-11-02 14:07 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org>:
> > That would mean to have "flink-java_2.10" and "flink-java_2.11" artifacts > > (and others that depend on flink-java and have no other Scala dependency) > > in the 0.10.0 release and only "flink-java" in the next 1.0 release. > > > My suggestion was to keep the Scala unsuffixed Scala 2.10 and add a > suffix for Scala 2.11. That's the way we are currently doing it (also > deployed on Maven like this). For the next release after 0.10, we can > do it properly. > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org> wrote: > > If we choose selective Scala version suffix for artifacts, we have to > tell which artifacts have the version suffix to newcomers. Some artifacts > such as "flink-java”, "flink-streaming-java" are easily recognized. But > IMO, knowing whether artifacts such as "flink-ml", "flink-clients", > "flink-table" have the version suffix or not is difficult for newcomers. > > > > This is why we are adding the version suffix to all Scala 2.11 artifacts > currently. For Scala 2.10 artifacts, we aren’t adding the version suffix > for Flink with Java users. > > > > I’m for adding the version suffix to Scala 2.10 artifacts also. But I’m > not sure that removing the version suffix from Java-only artifacts would be > good. As I said above, It seems difficult for newcomers. > > > > Regards, > > Chiwan Park > > > > On November 2, 2015 at 8:19:15 PM, Fabian Hueske (fhue...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > > That would mean to have "flink-java_2.10" and "flink-java_2.11" artifacts > > (and others that depend on flink-java and have no other Scala dependency) > > in the 0.10.0 release and only "flink-java" in the next 1.0 release. > > > > Do we want that? > > > > 2015-11-02 11:37 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org>: > > > >> I'm for leaving it as-is and renaming all artifacts which depend on > >> Scala for the release following 0.10. > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > OK, let me try to summarize the discussion (and please correct me if I > >> got > >> > something wrong). > >> > > >> > 1) Flink deploys Scala 2.11 snapshot artifacts. Therefore, we have to > >> > release 2.11 artifacts for the 0.10.0 release version as well. > >> > > >> > 2) Everybody agrees to appropriately tag all artifacts that have a > >> > (transitive) Scala dependency. ATM, that would also include flink-java > >> > which is a bit awkward. The Scala dependency in flink-java originates > >> from > >> > the Chill library which is used to obtain a Kryo serializer which is > >> > initialized with serializers for Scala classes. We could resolve this > >> issue > >> > by providing Java and Scala specific implementations of the Kryo > >> > serializers and have KryoTypeInfos for Java and Scala. > >> > > >> > The question to answer right now is, do we want to have "correctly" > >> labeled > >> > artifacts for the next 0.10.0 release or do we defer that for 1.0? > >> > If we want to solve it for 0.10.0 we need to cancel the current RC and > >> > provide a fix to remove the Scala dependency in flink-java, IMO. > >> > > >> > Opinions? > >> > > >> > Cheers, Fabian > >> > > >> > 2015-11-02 8:55 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>: > >> > > >> >> +1 for the approach discusses here, and for removing Scala > dependencies > >> >> from modules that can be Scala independent. > >> >> > >> >> It would be nice if pure Java users would not see any Scala > versioning > >> (on > >> >> flink-core, flink-java, later also flink-sreaming-java). I guess for > any > >> >> runtime-related parts (including flink-client and currently all > >> streaming > >> >> projects), we need the Scala versions... > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Good point. Didn't know that. We can still add them for the > release. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Alexander Alexandrov > >> >> > <alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > My two cents - there are already Maven artifacts deployed for > 2.11 > >> in > >> >> the > >> >> > > SNAPSHOT repository. I think it might be confusing if they > suddenly > >> >> > > disappear for the stable release. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2015-10-29 11:58 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org>: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> Seems like we agree that we need artifacts for different > versions > >> of > >> >> > Scala > >> >> > >> on Maven. There also seems to be a preference for including the > >> >> version > >> >> > in > >> >> > >> the artifact name. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> I've created an issue and marked it to be resolved for 1.0. For > the > >> >> 0.10 > >> >> > >> release, we will have binaries but no Maven artifacts. The > biggest > >> >> > >> challenge I see is to remove Scala from as many modules as > >> possible. > >> >> For > >> >> > >> example, flink-java depends on Scala at the moment.. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2940 > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Frederick F. Kautz IV < > >> >> > fka...@redhat.com> > >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > No idea if I get a vote ;) Nevertheless, +1 to have binaries > for > >> >> both > >> >> > >> > versions in Maven and explicitly "scala versioned". > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Some background on this for those not as familiar with scala > >> >> > versioning: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > It's considered best practice to label what version of scala a > >> >> library > >> >> > >> > uses in the artifact id. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > The reason is compiled scala code is only compatible with the > >> major > >> >> > >> > version of scala it was compiled for. For example, a library > >> >> > compatible > >> >> > >> > with 2.10 is not compatible with 2.11. The same will be true > with > >> >> 2.12 > >> >> > >> once > >> >> > >> > it is released. Mixing versions will result in undefined > behavior > >> >> > which > >> >> > >> > will likely manifest itself as runtime exceptions. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > The convention to fix this problem is for all published > >> libraries to > >> >> > >> > specify the version of scala they are compatible with. Leaving > >> out > >> >> the > >> >> > >> > scala version in a library is akin to saying "We don't depend > on > >> >> scala > >> >> > >> for > >> >> > >> > this library, so feel free to use whatever you want." Sbt > users > >> will > >> >> > >> > typically specify the version of scala they use and tooling is > >> built > >> >> > >> around > >> >> > >> > ensuring consistency with the "%%" operator. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > E.g. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > scalaVersion := "2.11.4" > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > // this resolves to to artifactID: "scalacheck_2.11" > >> >> > >> > libraryDependencies += "org.scalacheck" %% "scalacheck" % > >> "1.12.0" % > >> >> > >> "test" > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > The most important part of this is that the scala version is > >> >> explicit > >> >> > >> > which eliminates the problem for downstream users. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Cheers, > >> >> > >> > Frederick > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > On 10/28/2015 10:55 AM, Fabian Hueske wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> +1 to have binaries for both versions in Maven and as build > to > >> >> > download. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2015-10-26 17:11 GMT+01:00 Theodore Vasiloudis < > >> >> > >> >> theodoros.vasilou...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> +1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application > >> >> currently > >> >> > >> with > >> >> > >> >>> Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying > >> e.g. to > >> >> > EC2 > >> >> > >> >>> is a > >> >> > >> >>> pain. > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ufuk Celebi < > u...@apache.org> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> I agree with Till, but is this something you want to > address in > >> >> this > >> >> > >> >>>> release already? > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> I would postpone it to 1.0.0. > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> – Ufuk > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann < > trohrm...@apache.org > >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 > artifacts to > >> >> > Maven > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> since > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. > >> Having > >> >> the > >> >> > >> >>>>> dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably > >> >> easier > >> >> > for > >> >> > >> >>>>> people to get their Flink jobs running. > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> Furthermore, I observed that people are not aware that our > >> >> > deployed > >> >> > >> >>>>> artifacts, e.g. flink-runtime, are built with Scala 2.10. > As > >> a > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> consequence, > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> they mix flink dependencies with other dependencies > pulling > >> in > >> >> > Scala > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> 2.11 > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> and then they wonder that the program crashes. It would be, > >> imho, > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> clearer > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> if all our dependencies which depend on a specific Scala > >> version > >> >> > would > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> have > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> the corresponding Scala suffix appended. > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> Adding the 2.10 suffix would also spare us the hassle of > >> >> upgrading > >> >> > >> to a > >> >> > >> >>>>> newer Scala version in the future, because then the > artifacts > >> >> > >> wouldn't > >> >> > >> >>>>> share the same artifact name. > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> Cheers, > >> >> > >> >>>>> Till > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Maximilian Michels < > >> >> > m...@apache.org> > >> >> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> Hi Flinksters, > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> We have recently committed an easy way to change Flink's > >> Scala > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> version. > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> The > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> question arises now whether we should ship Scala 2.11 as > >> >> binaries > >> >> > and > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> via > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> Maven. For the rc0, I created all binaries twice, for > Scala > >> 2.10 > >> >> > and > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> 2.11. > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> However, I didn't create Maven artifacts. This follows our > >> >> current > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> shipping > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> strategy where we only ship Hadoop1 and Hadoop 2.3.0 Maven > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> dependencies > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> but > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> additionally Hadoop 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 as binaries. > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> Should we also upload Maven dependencies for Scala 2.11? > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> If so, the next question arises: What version pattern > >> should we > >> >> > have > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> for > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> the Flink Scala 2.11 dependencies? For Hadoop, we append > >> -hadoop1 > >> >> > to > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> the > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> VERSION, e.g. artifactID=flink-core, version=0.9.1-hadoop1. > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> However, it is common practice to append the suffix to > the > >> >> > >> artifactID > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> of > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>>> the Maven dependency, e.g. artifactID=flink-core_2.11, > >> >> > version=0.9.1. > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> This > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> has mostly historic reasons but is widely used. > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> Whatever naming pattern we choose, it should be > consistent. > >> I > >> >> > would > >> >> > >> be > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> in > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>> favor of changing our artifact names to contain the Hadoop > >> and > >> >> > Scala > >> >> > >> >>>>>> version. This would also imply that all Scala dependent > >> Maven > >> >> > >> modules > >> >> > >> >>>>>> receive a Scala suffix (also the default Scala 2.10 > >> modules). > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> Cheers, > >> >> > >> >>>>>> Max > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
