Thanks Russell for the clarification. I think we can make this work.

Regards,
Pavan

> On May 26, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> You are looking at the "runtime" jars, the non-runtime jars are not shaded. 
> For example
> 
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.iceberg/iceberg-spark2/0.11.1 
> <https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.iceberg/iceberg-spark2/0.11.1> 
> - Unshaded
> vs
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.iceberg/iceberg-spark-runtime/0.11.1
>  
> <https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.iceberg/iceberg-spark-runtime/0.11.1>
>  - Shaded
> 
> So as is you can actually get unshaded versions of all Iceberg libraries with 
> every release. If you want to use unshaded libraries they are available.
> 
> Now you may ;) be using a Spark distribution which 
> includes a shaded version of Iceberg at runtime. In that case you should 
> reach out to the providers of that runtime
> and ask them if they can figure out another solution for you.
> 
>> On May 26, 2021, at 11:48 AM, Pavan Lanka <pla...@apple.com.INVALID 
>> <mailto:pla...@apple.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Currently I see that Iceberg shades 
>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/master/build.gradle#L894> a bunch of 
>> libraries and does not offer(please correct me in case I am mistaken here) 
>> any releases that does not shade these libraries.
>> 
>> For some integrations (Avro, ORC, Parquet) I was wondering if we would be 
>> open to the idea of supporting both a shaded version and an unshaded 
>> version. 
>> 
>> The unshaded version will allow us to deal with bug fixes and compatible 
>> improvements without necessitating an Iceberg build. It is understood that 
>> this will come with potential challenges of an incompatible release that has 
>> not been whetted through the Iceberg release process.
>> 
>> We like to propose both a shaded and unshaded release of Iceberg to offer 
>> choice and wanted to hear from the community on this. Please share your 
>> thoughts.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Pavan
> 

Reply via email to