Thanks for the feedback Zoltan! Unlike Gradle, in Maven we cannot have a dependency declared at the same time as test & runtime (unfortunately). Nevertheless, I believe the combination runtime + optional is a better option for the declaration of JDBC drivers.
I raised HIVE-25701 [1] and raised a PR [2] with the proposed changes. Let's continue the discussion there. Best, Stamatis [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-25701 [2] https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/2790 On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 9:47 AM Zoltan Haindrich <k...@rxd.hu> wrote: > Hey Stamatis! > > Makes sense to me; I think we already have all of the jdbc drivers in the > test scope - but adding runtime is a great idea! > > I had some memories about some letter that we are using Cat-X stuff in > Hive and we should remove it - I think HIVE-23284 was opened in response to > that. > However...if that comes back after these changes we may ask to update the > scanner because we only use it in test runtime. > > cheers, > Zoltan > > On 11/10/21 11:59 AM, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Currently, we have some (MariadDB, MySQL, Oracle) Category-X [1] JDBC > > drivers in some parts of the project. Sometimes they are included using > the > > dependency section with <scope>test</scope> and some others by relying on > > download-maven-plugin [2]. > > > > Using test scope is kind of OK but it comes with the risk that we may > write > > code which needs JDBC driver classes in order to compile and this could > be > > seen as a violation of the AL2 when the Hive source code is released. > From > > my understanding, the use of download-maven-plugin, first introduced in > > HIVE-23284 [3], was an attempt to remedy this problem. Now it comes back > > since we started using the test scope again. > > > > We have a few other drivers, namely Postgres, MSSQL, in test scope but > are > > less important since they have BSD-2 and MIT licenses which are not > > problematic. > > > > I would expect that in the context of Hive *all* the JDBC drivers should > be > > declared using the <scope>runtime</scope>. This would remove the need to > > use the download-maven-plugin and would simplify the inclusion of drivers > > in the build. We are not risking to create derivatives of GPL work since > > the dependency is not present at compilation so we cannot really use the > > respective classes in our code. > > > > Moreover, driver dependencies could be marked optional, which is actually > > true, and that would solve any potential licensing issues [4]. > > > > I would like to propose to use the following declaration for all JDBC > > drivers no matter the license. > > > > <dependency> > > <groupId>org.mariadb.jdbc</groupId> > > <artifactId>mariadb-java-client</artifactId> > > <version>${mariadb.version}</version> > > <scope>runtime</scope> > > <optional>true</optional> > > </dependency> > > > > This will make things more uniform, solve any potential licensing issues, > > and when in the future someone copy-pastes dependencies to include new > > drivers there will be no violation of AL2. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best, > > Stamatis > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > [2] > > > https://search.maven.org/artifact/com.googlecode.maven-download-plugin/download-maven-plugin/1.6.1/jar > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-23284 > > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > > >
