@eron I would try to rely almost purely on the shade plugin
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Eron Wright <eronwri...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion, the ideal approach to mitigating conflicts between > application code and Flink itself is to relocate all of Flink's > dependencies. Rationale is to avoid placing the burden of relocation on > the app developer, and ultimately to eliminate the need for an app > uber-jar. > > For example, imagine enhancing Flink to directly support Maven > repositories, e.g. > ``` > $ flink run --package org.example:app:1.0 > ... > Downloading: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/example/app/1.0/app.pom > ... > ``` > > From that perspective, FLINK-6529 is another good step in that direction. > But it seems like we'd be forking more libraries ("fetty"!). Would we > need to alter the source code or rely on the shading plugin? As Chesnay > mentioned, what's the impact in the IDE? > > In the future, could the entire flink-runtime be made an uber-jar, > performing the relocation at that stage? > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > Have we somewhere documented how to publish > > > artifacts on Maven central? > > > > Pulling in Robert who published frocks. @Robert: Would you like to > > volunteer for this? Would really help to combine this with some docs > > about publishing Maven artefacts in the flink-shaded-deps README. :-) > > In general, I'm curious to hear your opinion on this proposal. > > > > – Ufuk > > >
