New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
simpleclient_servlet duplicates classes from simpleclient.jar starting in 0.12 #771
Comments
Hi, I assume you mean that these dependencies are both, in <dependency>
<groupId>io.prometheus</groupId>
<artifactId>simpleclient</artifactId>
<version>0.15.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>io.prometheus</groupId>
<artifactId>simpleclient_common</artifactId>
<version>0.15.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency> Good point, I'll remove them from |
A project I'm working on flags when duplicate class files exist, so are hitting this issue as well. Thinking all the dependencies might be bundled, we tried excluding
So it seems like removing the dependencies would leave things in a non functional state. Is it possible to either produce an artifact that contains the client completely embedded, or completely separate so we can resolve the dependency? |
@fstab I'm not talking about the dependencies in the pom. I'm saying the classes are actually duplicated inside the JAR files. In version 0.11.0 the contents of simpleclient_servlet.jar was this:
Starting in 0.12.0, it's this:
For most setups I guess this duplication doesn't break anything, but anyone checking for duplicate classes will find it, and it seems pretty clear it should not be this way. |
Thanks a lot for the explanation. It seem that this is related to Unfortunately it's not clear why this happens. Moreover, the I have never used OSGI myself and I'm not an expert on what exactly Is there anyone reading this with a bit more OSGI knowledge who could give some advice? |
Starting with release 0.12, the simpleclient_servlet jar now contains duplicates of most (all?) classes from the core client. The dependency from the servlet module on the main module still exists, so I can only assume this is unintentional.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: