[FLINK-20098] Don't add flink-connector-files to flink-dist, make dependencies explicit

[aljoscha]

[FLINK-20098] Don't add flink-connector-files to flink-dist, make dependencies explicit

We currently add both flink-connector-files and flink-connector-base to flink-dist.

This implies, that users should use the dependency like this:

<dependency>
  <groupId>org.apache.flink</groupId>
  <artifactId>flink-connector-files</artifactId>
  <version>${project.version}</version>
  <scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>

which differs from other connectors where users don't need to specify provided.

Also, flink-connector-files had flink-connector-base as a provided dependency, which means that examples that use this dependency would not run out-of-box in IntelliJ because transitive provided dependencies will not be considered.

This removes the dependencies from flink-dist which lets users use the File Connector like any other connector.

I believe the initial motivation for "providing" the File Connector in flink-dist was to allow us to use the File Connector under the hood in methods such as StreamExecutionEnvironment.readFile(...). We could decide to deprecate and remove those methods or re-add the File Connector as an explicit (non-provided) dependency again in the future.

Brief change log

• remove dependencies from flink-dist
• change provided dependencies to instead be in compile scope
• add File Connector modules to Table API uber jars because they are using them and were relying on them being present in flink-dist. This increases the size of the Table uber jars by a couple of kilo bytes but it should be negligible.

Verifying this change

Covered by existing tests.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): maybe
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving)may: no
• The serializers: no
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: no
• The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

Not applicable

[aljoscha]

Second time might work. 😅

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 48788be (Wed Nov 18 13:19:34 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

• 7 pom.xml files were touched: Check for build and licensing issues.
• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 2e98342 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[dawidwys]

+1, modulo one comment

[dawidwys]

Remove this? If there is a reason to leave it I can't see add a comment why do we have that commented out code.

[aljoscha]

Yes, I put this in because I thought I might have to uncomment it but I was 90% sure that it was not needed.

[aljoscha]

That's why it's in a separate commit. I should have mentioned that before ... 🙈

[aljoscha]

Merged!