You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> on 2016/10/01 14:39:20 UTC
Re: SolrJ 6.2 now depends on Google-Guava and Jackson WTF?!
On 9/30/2016 4:13 PM, Hrishikesh Gadre wrote:
> As I mentioned in SOLR-9542
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9542>, we can remove guava
> dependency in solrj by getting rid of the annotation added for a test
> method. Also jackson dependency can be replaced with noggit.
The guava dependency definitely looks like something that's completely
unnecessary. The annotation that was added
(com.google.common.annotations.VisibleForTesting) seems like something
that can be handled in Javadoc. If the existing javadoc is not clear
enough, we should just fix that, allowing us to remove the annotation
and the dependency.
Thanks,
Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: SolrJ 6.2 now depends on Google-Guava and Jackson WTF?!
Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I've created SOLR-9588 and SOLR-9589 for reviewing and removing the Guava
and Jacskon dependencies from SolrJ that were introduced in SOLR-9200.
I'll attach patches for the same soon.
Regarding the SOLR-9542, as Hrishikesh pointed out, I added old Jackson to
solr-core, and it shouldn't be a problem for SolrJ users.
Regards,
Ishan
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 4:13 PM, Hrishikesh Gadre wrote:
> > As I mentioned in SOLR-9542
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9542>, we can remove guava
> > dependency in solrj by getting rid of the annotation added for a test
> > method. Also jackson dependency can be replaced with noggit.
>
> The guava dependency definitely looks like something that's completely
> unnecessary. The annotation that was added
> (com.google.common.annotations.VisibleForTesting) seems like something
> that can be handled in Javadoc. If the existing javadoc is not clear
> enough, we should just fix that, allowing us to remove the annotation
> and the dependency.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>