Niall Pemberton wrote:
Whats the state of play with this - I was just about to do the release
for Chain 1.1 - it has been modified to have
<groupId>org.apache.commons</groupId> - is it OK to release with this
or should I revert to <groupId>commons-chain</groupId>?
Niall,
I haven't had time yet to make the relocations tests in my local repo yet.
Please revert the groupId to commons-chain before releasing Chain 1.1.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
--
Dennis Lundberg
Niall
On 6/5/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett, I did the test that you suggested.
1. Installed commons-lang 1.0.1 into my local repo with
groupId=org.apache.commons
mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=org.apache.commons
-DartifactId=commons-lang -Dversion=1.0.1 -Dpackaging=jar
-Dfile=/path/to/commons-lang-1.0.1.jar
2. Created Maven 2 projects a, b and c with the dependencies mentioned
below.
3. Installed projects a and b into my local repo
mvn install
4. packaged project c as a war
mvn package
The resulting war file includes both commons-lang-1.0.1.jar and
commons-lang-2.1.jar which was what you thought would happen.
So this is bad, I guess. Anyone who uses commons components transitively
in a Maven 2 environment are likely to be bitten by this. They must keep
the same groupId for all commons-lang dependencies, as an example, in
the entire chain of transitive dependencies. I.e. they can't mix
groupId=commons-lang and groupId=org.apache.commons. This can be a PITA
since some of the dependencies are most likely out of the projects own
control.
What do you suggest we do? Should we wait with this relocation until a
version of Maven 2 is released that can handle these kind of
dependencies?
--
Dennis Lundberg
Brett Porter wrote:
> an extensive test should be something along the lines of:
>
> project A depends on commons-lang:commons-lang 2.1
> project B depends on o.a.c:commons-lang 1.0
> project C is a webapp that depends on A and B
>
> webapp should have only one commons-lang.
>
> You could do this with your own repository (and something completely
> artificial instead of commons-lang if it makes it easier).
>
> - Brett
>
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> Hi Brett
>>
>> Sorry, I misunderstood you regarding when to do the testing. So, no I
>> haven't done the test, yet. Can you elaborate a bit more on what needs
>> to be tested? Perhaps you know of an artifact that has been relocated
>> that we can have a look at, to see how they have done.
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]