If the size difference is not that much, we could include that in `pulsar-client` too. (Perhaps moving the API part into `pulsar-client-api` as well.
-- Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a new user I find this a great idea. > For the future I will be happy to see the admin API to be able to connect > to the binary endpoint and not to the http one. > > Cheers > Enrico > > Il giorno lun 11 feb 2019, 07:03 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > Hi all, > > > > Currently we are shipping `pulsar-client` and `pulsar-client-admin` > > separately. They are both > > shaded packages. It is quite common to see applications using both > > `pulsar-client` and > > `pulsar-client-admin`. These applications will have redundant shaded > > classes in both > > `pulsar-client` and `pulsar-client-admin`. Sometimes it also caused > > troubles when we introduced new dependencies but forgot to update shading > > rules. > > > > So I am creating a new PIP to propose adding a new module > > `pulsar-client-all`, which will include both `pulsar-client-original` and > > `pulsar-client-admin-original`, and shade the dependencies all together. > > This would reduce the size of dependencies for applications uses both > > `pulsar-client` and `pulsar-client-admin`. > > > > Here is the link for PIP-29: > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-29:-One-package-for-both-pulsar-client-and-pulsar-admin > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Thanks, > > Sijie > >
