Github user mcfongtw commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4545#discussion_r133404126 --- Diff: flink-connectors/flink-connector-cassandra/pom.xml --- @@ -83,6 +85,10 @@ under the License. <exclude>com.google.inject.**</exclude> </excludes> </relocation> + <relocation> + <pattern>io.netty</pattern> + <shadedPattern>org.apache.flink.shaded.netty4.io.netty</shadedPattern> --- End diff -- Thanks for your review and reply! I see your points now, and I still have a few questions to the shading approach though: 1. There seems to be some policies for making shadedPattern for different scenarios. Would there be any external documents that possibly address these rules? 2. It is obvious to shade a *direct dependency, since we need it to be free of class clashes. How would we decide which *indirect dependencies to be shaded? 3. The benefit of shading is clear, but wouldn't it increase the jar file size if there are more dependencies that need to be managed later on - also the effort of managing the including/relocation rules. I will update another version of PR later. Thanks!
--- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---