Hi - > On May 14, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13 May 2018 at 12:10, Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> The code in question is testing a feature that takes Jars from a user and >>> execute the code contained. Indeed the Jar should not be in the sources, >>> though I believe the test is correct here: we need to validate the >> specific >>> feature by dynamically loading a Jar. >>> >> >> By generating the binary jar from source files at test time, you'd avoid >> bundling any binary output files. >> > > I made the original change long time back in pulsar-functions for testing > submitting user-defined function. When we first contribute pulsar-functions > to pulsar, we probably didn't clean that up. > The intention behind that change is not including any source code or jar in > the test dependency tree. As including source code would make the testing > function as part of the test dependency, it would volatile the purpose of > testing submitting a user defined function. In this case, > "multifunction.jar" is the a "user-defined" function as the test resource.
To be succinct The ASF produces open source software and including a pre-compiled binary in the release means that the project fails the open source definition. [1] It really doesn’t matter how or why. You will need to provide the source (as simple as it might be) and the maven configuration to build that trivial jar. Regards, Dave [1] https://opensource.org/osd > > > > > >> >> >>>> (e.g., injecting a >>> module-info.class file at build time rather than requiring Java 9+ to >> build >>> regardless). >>> >>> I don't see any place in the code where we are using "module-info.class" >>> and the project requires Java 8 and not 9. >>> >> >> Sorry for the confusion, that was just an example from a problem I've seen >> before in another project. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
