Hi, folks, hope you're all well? After some time, I finally was able to get back to this topic.
I've realized something. Maven 3 (and 4, or at least what's on the master branch) are hard wired to one specific model version. I'm deducing this by the fact that the model generation via Modello uses one model version (4.0.0) and also doesn't use versioned packages. So, whenever Maven builds/writes a POM for you, you get that particular model version and its corresponding namespace and schema attributes in the root element. Reading a POM though doesn't require anything special (sure, the XML must conform to the schema, but the element "modelVersion" can be anything until it is verified by Maven). The namespace and schema attributes aren't even taken into account afaict. Why am I bringing this up? I'm still in for a model change and if I want to successfully introduce one, it would need to be a minor change (non-breaking), not a major change. So, adding new XML elements, like in my case or in cases of different Maven issues (e.g. global exclusions), would be ok. Removing some element or attribute on the other hand would not be ok. And how would minor changes be ok? It would enable us to modify Maven 3 to be able to handle "newer" model versions simply by ignoring unknown XML elements and attributes. One could think of such newer XML elements or attributes as not supported by Maven 3. A warning in the build log could inform the user of such situations, because build results might or might not be as expected. So, the idea is that the Maven model could evolve in minor versions and for users to fully benefit from it, they would need to "keep up" with the Maven installation, which they should anyway for security and performance updates as well as bug fixes. And to have a "nice" namespace and schema we could change http://maven.[...]/POM/4.0.0 to http://maven.[...]/POM/4.x.x. Also: Whenever Maven generates/writes a POM, it could try to use the lowest minor version possible for compatibility reasons, depending on what functionality a POM uses. No need to write a 4.1.0 if no "advanced" feature is being used. I know all of this is only relevant to Maven 3 and 4. Maven 5 will have a completely different approach when it comes to POMs and additions to the model might need to be dealt with differently. I've asked myself a few times by now: Can I implement this dependency overrides/replacements feature without changing the model? It's difficult. I don't think extensions would work. For this feature to work as I intend it to, the Maven Resolver needs to be changed to honor overrides/replacements and overrides need to be passed on to it when Maven runs, which is why I think it needs to be a core feature. A different approach would be to introduce a "Maven reserved artifact" for dependency overrides. A POM accompanying (XML) file which needs to contain pretty much what I suggested to add to the existing model. Previous Maven versions wouldn't be able to work with such files, because they are not aware of them, but one wouldn't see any build warnings like I suggested above. Sorry for the very, very long post, but I really want to get this feature into Maven and I need more brain power (yours to be precise) to do so. Please share your thoughts. Kind regards, Enno P.S. Just as a reminder: Pretty much all of this is implemented already and also rebased onto the latest Maven and Maven Resolver master branches. You can find the URLs to all repositories (Maven, Maven Resolver and some examples) in my previous mails. ________________________________ From: Enno Thieleke <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 8:47 PM To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> Subject: Re: Fw: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides Hi, Hervé, thanks for the information. 1. Yes, Dependency-Overrides.md is up-to-date. I've changed one detail though, but it doesn't affect the big picture, it just makes things clearer: overrides can now declare a version (which makes corresponding managed dependencies optional to reduce XML code). 2. I've implemented all the stuff I suggested in Dependency-Overrides.md already. A working example can be found at g...@github.com:strohmattenverleger/maven-MNG-4530-example.git Just build g...@github.com:strohmattenverleger/maven-resolver.git and g...@github.com:strohmattenverleger/maven.git first. 3. After reading your article I can now understand why it would/could be a bad idea to simply update the POM version from 4.0 to, say, 4.1. A Maven 3 installation would be obsolete if there was a single POM in a graph that's "too new". Let's imagine updating the POM of Guava or SLF4J to something like 4.1 for a second. Boom. To be honest: I wouldn't mind being forced to update to a newer Maven version in such a case. The world keeps turning after all. :) But if it can be avoided with good measures, then that approach should be preferred. And I think the build vs. consumer POM approach is promising (no plugin configurations and such in consumer POMs), which brings me to your next point. 4. I'm having trouble imagining a way to generate a consumer POM (4.0) from my build POM (i.e. a POM with overrides). Yes, one could juggle with excludes (again), but the idea of dependency overrides is to modify certain nodes in a dependency graph without the need for exclusions. This is why I went for a minor update of the POM schema in the first place. I would like overrides to be transparent and concise. Unfortunately I can't think of a way how to implement this feature for older Maven versions without "them knowing what they are dealing with", if we are talking about proper overrides/replacements, not just exclusions and additional dependencies. Not very satisfying, I know. Do you have an idea? I'm open to suggestions. Regarding MNG-6772: Interesting. I never experienced this issue myself, but I agree with your expectation in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6772?focusedCommentId=17310052&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17310052 Since there's no corresponding branch in https://github.com/apache/maven do you need someone to give a solution to this issue another try before we get our hands dirty with other stuff? Did I unterstand you correctly? Regards, Enno ________________________________ From: Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 8:42 AM To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> Subject: Re: Fw: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides I forgot: last but not least we have consistency issues with parent POM and dependencyManagement POM import downloads when repositories are defined in projects pom.xml see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6772 and linked issues while working on all this dependencies management, it would be useful to fix this issue that is blocking other improvements: - definition of central in settings.xml https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-4645 - pluginManagement import https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5588 = I don't want to copy/paste a 2nd time the buggy code from dependencyManagement import as it was copied from parent resolution... Regards, Hervé Le mercredi 22 décembre 2021, 08:37:08 CET Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : > my own quick opinion: > > 1. I did not review the full email thread, so is > https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven/blob/MNG-4530/Dependency-Overr > ides.md still the current state of the idea? > > 2. can you add concrete examples, please? > > 3. given the impact, I fear this may be for Maven 5: we clearly need to > focus on releasing Maven 4 first > https://www.javaadvent.com/2021/12/from-maven-3-to-maven-5.html > > 4. as part of the build vs consumer pom approach, do you think a consumer > pom can be generated from your build pom? > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le lundi 20 décembre 2021, 21:25:39 CET Enno Thieleke a écrit : > > Hello again, > > > > judging by the increased traffic in this mailing list some of you seem to > > be on vacation. That's nice. I was hoping that this might be a good time > > to ask for your opinion again about what I wrote a couple of weeks ago? > > > > Kind regards > > Enno > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Enno Thieleke <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de> > > Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 10:54 AM > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > Hi, > > > > concerning the request to change the override XML element to a > > fully-fledged dependency, thus removing the need for accompanying managed > > dependencies... > > > > tl;dr > > I would add a version attribute, nothing more, to the override XML > > element. > > The rest would remain unchanged. > > > > Full version: > > > > If I turned the override XML element into a fully-fledged dependency, > > should we support properties such as `scope` and `optional`? In my > > opinion we shouldn't, because that's still subject to original dependency > > definitions, not overrides. If people want to change the scope or add > > exclusions, they should stick to dependency management. That's what it's > > there for. > I think > > > it's enough to just add a version child-element to the current override > > XML > > element. That would remove the need for accompanying managed dependencies > > for just versions and in many simple cases that'd suffice, wouldn't you > > agree? I think we should draw the line here between changing artifact > > coordinates, a special kind of dependency management, and managing other > > dependency properties -> separation of concerns. Suppose I added a version > > child-element, I'd still have concerns about moving dependencyOverrides up > > one level so that it would be a sibling of dependencyManagement. Imagine I > > moved dependencyOverrides up one level. How would we import them properly? > > Currently importing a POM imports both: managed dependencies as well as > > overrides and I think that wouldn't be the right approach anymore. Would > > special import XML elements do the trick? Such as this: > > <dependencyManagement> > > > > <dependencies> > > > > <dependency> > > > > ... > > <scope>import</scope> <!-- Imports managed dependencies --> > > > > </dependency> > > > > </dependencies> > > > > </dependencyManagement> > > <dependencyOverrides> > > > > <imports> > > > > <import> <!-- Imports overrides; the packaging of the import MUST be > > pom > > > > --> > > <groupId/> > > > <artifactId/> > > <version/> > > > > </import> > > > > </imports> > > ... > > > > </dependencyOverrides> > > > > To be honest: I think that'd suck. Another way would be to introduce a new > > special purpose scope, but I think the existing special purpose scope > > "import" is perfect: it's meant to import dependency management > > information > > from different POMs and since overrides affect dependencies in the sense > > that they manage dependency coordinates, we're still talking about > > dependency management. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > Kind regards > > Enno > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 2:33 PM > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 14:15, Enno Thieleke <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de> > > a > > > > écrit : > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > @Delany, regarding 1 and 2: If I added all the other elements of the > > > dependency tag, I would have to apply dependency management anyway if > > > present (and I played around with it for a bit), but I see your point. > > > Maybe using the dependency tag (I'd still name it override though) is > > > "good > > enough" for small projects/POMs. I will throw a bit of time at it > > > > and check for "bad" implications. > > > > > > > > > > > > Making the override tag optional to have some sort of global exclusion > > > mechanism is out of scope. Let me explain: When dependency management > > > comes > > into play (in maven-resolver), it is not designed/intended to > > > > suddenly have no dependency at hand to work with. The dependency node in > > > the graph already exists and the only thing that's left to do is filling > > > it with the right information. I would have to rewrite/change that code > > > as well. I.e. the code would have to check for a dependencyOverride with > > > a matching original with no override. To be honest, I personally find > > > that to be confusing. An exclusion should be explicit, because it > > > carries > > > a lot of weight in my opinion. The absence of an XML element should not > > > make for an exclusion. Global excludes should exist though, just in a > > > different way.> > > > > > > > > > @Romain, I disagree that not defining the version in an override could > > > be > > > a source of big issues, because it would have to be defined in > > > dependency > > > management anyway, so it's basically there. Changing the major version > > > is > > > possible, even today, simply by using dependency management. It is the > > > responsibility of the developer to provide a proper override (which is > > > why > > > I suggested a different name, dropinReplacement, to make the intent > > > clearer). Still, as stated earlier, I will see what I can do. No > > > promises > > > though. :) > > > > I never said I like that but it is what it is so "it would have to be > > defined in dependency management" is an assumption you cannot do and is > > erroneous and I don't see us saying you can't use this override feature > > and/or we break your project if you do so I guess we don't have much > > choice > > than baking it completely and not half. > > > > Keep in mind dependencyManagement does not behave as dependency override > > but that it solves similar issues (controlling your dependency graph for > > submodules since in a single module it is not that useful and excludes are > > more straight forwards) so as an user you will want to put it in the same > > (root? ;)) pom to keep the maintenance easy - spreading overrides in all > > poms is not easy to handle in time, this is why mgt block beats dependency > > for ex in multimodule projects, I don't see why it wouldn't be the same > > for > > overrides. > > > > Alternatively we can fail if we hit this case to prevent overrides in such > > a case, can be okish in first versions maybe? > > > > > I agree, having 2 dependencies with the same coordinates but different > > > versions is a common thing. But in a single Maven module maven-resolver > > > would see to it that there's only one version on the classpath. After > > > all, > > > we're not talking about OSGi (thank god). It's different for multiple > > > Maven > > modules though and you know it, so I won't elaborate. > > > Would mean you forbid overrides in packaging=pom modules, not sure it > > would > > be that useful to do so since you would duplicate the override in all > > modules. > > Makes a lot of noise compared to excludes in a depMgt block form my quick > > tests so guess it is not the intent ;). > > > > > And yes, overriding the classifier (and extension/type) should be > > > possible > > > too. And it already is, but it needs more testing, which I'm working on. > > > > 👍 > > > > > Kind regards > > > Enno > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:00 AM > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I fear not defining the version is likely a source of big issues and > > > worse > > > than not having this feature at all since often, when you change the > > > major, > > you change totally the dependency and the override will just not > > > > work. You can indeed say you must not have 2 dependencies in different > > > versions but it is what it is and it is not that uncommon - in > > > particular > > > for libs (and if you want to force a single version you use dependency > > > management). So if this feature is desired I fear it must include the > > > version and likely manage the classifier as well to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > < > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performa > > > nc > > > e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 10:14, Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> a > > > écrit > > > > > > > Hi Enno, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On point 1, figuring out the order of events in a build can be > > > > > > challenging > > > > > > > for newbies since Maven is declarative. For example profiles are > > > > resolved > > > > early on and this is reflected by their place in the pom. Although > > > > that's > > > > really about config composition, having the overrides under project > > > > could > > > > also hint at their special nature. No strong argument to make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point 2, you say you are following a separation of concerns, but it > > > > seems > > > > rather you are forcing one. By requiring dependency management the > > > > result > > > > is a tight coupling between stages of resolving the final dependencies > > > > > > (not > > > > > > > being self-contained, you probably *should* make dependencyOverrides a > > > > child of dependencyManagement). > > > > Maven doesn't require managing dependencies, but your overrides do. > > > > > > There's > > > > > > > no harm in picking up config provided by DM, but why force the > > > > relationship? If someone wants to add an exclude at the time of an > > > > override, frankly that should just be "not your problem". Reusing an > > > > existing structure is surely preferable to inventing another one? > > > > Would > > > > > > the > > > > > > > enforcer rules have to learn about your new structure? > > > > I see why you went the path of only groupId:artifactId - you copied > > > > the > > > > exclusion structure. But then excluding doesn't require DM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're right about wrapping the lists. Will you at least allow not > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > a dependency at all, aka a global exclude? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Delany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 17:14, Enno Thieleke > > > > <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, Delany, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I get your point that management and overrides can be seen as > > > > > > > > independent. > > > > > > > > > To be honest, I'm really not picky about where in the POM overrides > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > be located. I was hoping for opinions on this from others (and was > > > > > not > > > > > disappointed) and at least one strong opinion from the Maven core > > > > > team. > > > > > > > > As > > > > > > > > > to why I put overrides in the management section in the first place: > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > because I saw overrides as a management subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About using the existing dependency tag to define replacements: I > > > > > tried > > > > > that (in a way, I still used a different tag name though). The issue > > > > > I > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > with it is that the dependency tag can also take version, > > > > > exclusions, > > > > > optional, etc. and I want that to be in the > > > > > /project/dependencyManagement/dependencies section. I'm applying the > > > > > separation of concerns principle here: overrides should simply map > > > > > > > > artifact > > > > > > > > > coordinates whereas managed dependencies are all about the right > > > > > > versions > > > > > > > > and such. Or maybe the managed dependencies should also provide the > > > > > override information? The entire existing implementation can still > > > > > be > > > > > changed with little effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also thought about allowing 0..n overrides for one original, but I > > > > > decided to make it a 1:1 mapping. Let me explain: First, I think it > > > > > is > > > > > currently not possible to have lists in POMs without a wrapping > > > > > > element. > > > > > > > > One would have to write: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- Simplified code for brevity --> > > > > > <dependencyOverrides> > > > > > > > > > > <dependencyOverride> > > > > > > > > > > <original/> > > > > > <dependencies> > > > > > > > > > > <dependency/> > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > </dependencies> > > > > > > > > > > </dependencyOverride> > > > > > > > > > > </dependencyOverrides> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me on this if I'm wrong. Second, I think most of the > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > people will be having 1:1 mappings anyway and with that in mind, > > > > > having > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > need to use lists which require a wrapping element would bloat a > > > > > POM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Long story short, your first point is up for discussion. If more > > > > > people > > > > > want overrides located elsewhere, then that's fine by me. Regarding > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > second point, I think the current approach is good and people would > > > > > > have > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > provide strong arguments to convince me of a different approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, thanks for the feedback, it's really appreciated and if you > > > > > have > > > > > more, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > Enno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 4:46 AM > > > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Enno, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 things. I'd want to emphasise that the resolution of dependency > > > > > management info and the dependency overrides (more like a reactor > > > > > management concern) are independent of one another. Can achieve by > > > > > promoting the tag to project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why not use the existing dependency tag to define the > > > > > > > > replacement(s). > > > > > > > > > Accept 0, 1 or many. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > <groupId>a</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>a</artifactId> > > > > > <dependencyOverrides> > > > > > > > > > > <dependencyOverride> > > > > > > > > > > <original> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>y</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>y</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > </original> > > > > > <dependency> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>z</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>z</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > </dependency> > > > > > <dependency> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>q</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>q</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > </dependency> > > > > > > > > > > </dependencyOverride> > > > > > > > > > > </dependencyOverrides> > > > > > <dependencies> > > > > > > > > > > <dependency> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>w</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>w</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > </dependency> > > > > > <dependency> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>x</groupId> > > > > > <artifactId>x</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > </dependency> > > > > > > > > > > </dependencies> > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Delany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 02:05, Enno Thieleke < > > > > > > enno.thiel...@holisticon.de > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's been a while and I've made some progress regarding > > > > > > overrides/replacements and wanted to share the current state. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's implemented/changed: > > > > > > * The POM version has been upgraded to 4.1.0 and will accept > > > > > > > > > > > > /project/dependencyManagement/dependencyOverrides which in turn > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > > the coordinates of original and overriding artifacts. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Overrides can be declared on any POM level in a hierarchy > > > > > > POMs > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > parents and children. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Overrides can be imported from other POMs using the existing > > > > > > > > > > > > `import` scope for POMs in the dependencyManagement section. > > > > > > > > > > > > * If the same original artifact is overridden on different > > > > > > levels, > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > "most downstream" wins. > > > > > > > > > > > > * An override *must* be accompanied by an entry in the > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencyManagement section. Maven generates an error and halts, > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > > > > not the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > * If an override is declared and consumed in the same > > > > > > effective > > > > > > > > POM, > > > > > > > > > > Maven generates a warning that the user should use the overriding > > > > > > > > > > artifact > > > > > > > > > > > instead of the original artifact. > > > > > > > > > > > > * The dependencies of an effective POM remain untouched. > > > > > > Overrides > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > declared in POMs, but the act of overriding is implemented in > > > > > > maven-resolver. > > > > > > > > > > > > * I set the version of maven-resolver to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > interfaces needed additions. While some might consider this to be > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > minor > > > > > > > > > > change, I consider this to be a major change, because the > > > > > > interfaces > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > not (and cannot be, yet) sealed. > > > > > > > > > > > > * It is possible to override overrides of transitive > > > > > > dependencies. > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > other words, it is possible to override overrides of POMs of > > > > > > > > > > dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > > While working on this I thought about names for > > > > > > overrides/replacements. > > > > > > > > > I'm still open to suggestions and pretty much undecided. Another > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > popped into my head is `dropinReplacements`, because it makes the > > > > > > > > intent > > > > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those of you who are interested, here are the links to the > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > again > > > > > > > > > > (so it's just one click away): > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven-resolver/tree/MNG-4530 > > > > > > > > > > > * https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven/tree/MNG-4530 > > > > > > * > > > > > > https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven-MNG-4530-example > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I've rebased my changes onto master very recently. > > > > > > > > > And here's the proposal itself: > > > https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven/blob/MNG-4530/Dependency-Ov > > > er > > > rides.md > > > > > > > > > If you find the time to look, please let me know what you think > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > you think is missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Enno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 8:34 AM > > > > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > > > > > > > > > A few notes on the proposal: > > > > > > - Leave a dependency graph virtually untouched. > > > > > > Only change/override nodes in place. Don't exclude dependencies > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > include new ones on a different level in the graph. > > > > > > > > > > > > Think, whatever it means, served dependencies in mojo shouldnt > > > > > > have > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > rely > > > > > > > > > > > on this new section using getXArtifact or dependency visitor. No > > > > > > real > > > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > > reason to break everyone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A not used override must break the build (it is an unexpected bug > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > make the dev life hard otherwise). I perfectly see that it will > > > > > > break > > > > > > building a submodule in several cases but otherwise the section > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > become > > > > > > > > > > > unmanageable with time (see hibernate or cxf example) and since > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > loose > > > > > > > > > > the dependency relationship with this option compared to > > > > > > exclusions, > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > too much work to maintain it in practise. (This is why I think it > > > > > > > > > > shouldnt > > > > > > > > > > > be done this way but very worse case at dependency level giving > > > > > > hints > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > overrides and not elsewhere, mixed with dependency managementnit > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > trivial > > > > > > > > > > > to handle and maintain then). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pom rewriter must handle this section by dropping it and replacing > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > exludes to keep compatibility with 3rd party resolvers > > > > > > (deployment). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall, I still think it would be neat to see it as an extension > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > maven > > > > > > > > > > > 3.8.2 or 4 to be testable and validate design choices and actual > > > > > > usage > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > real dependencies compared to current option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le sam. 4 sept. 2021 à 23:21, Enno Thieleke < > > > > > > > > enno.thiel...@holisticon.de > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > Hello again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to create a proposal in/under > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5964567 > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > but I'm not allowed to, which makes sense since I'm new to the > > > > > > wiki, > > > > > > > > so I > > > > > > > > > > > > committed a proposal to my fork: > > > https://github.com/strohmattenverleger/maven/blob/MNG-4530/Dependency-Ov > > > er > > > rides.md > > > > > > > > > > The current version probably still contains errors and misses > > > > > > details > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > I imo they need to be worked out in a group effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some feedback/comments would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you could create a proposal page in your wiki and grant me > > > > > > edit > > > > > > > > > > rights (user eth)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > Enno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Enno Thieleke <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:59 AM > > > > > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll take this as a "go ahead, if it's good we'll accept it". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a few more questions before I start. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the issue: Would reopening > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-4530 suffice or would > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > to see a new one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do I create the proposal? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What should be created first, the issue or the proposal? I'm > > > > > > asking, > > > > > > > > > > because in the proposal we'd work out the details and after > > > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > > > done, > > > > > > > > > > > > that's where the issue becomes relevant (no issue, no code > > > > > > changes). > > > > > > > At > > > > > > > > > > > least that's how I'm used to implementing changes like this. I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > to have created unnecessary noise in your issue system, if - for > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > unknown eventuality - the proposal doesn't get your approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok to use one issue for changes in both projects, Maven > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > maven-resolver? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > Enno > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:01 PM > > > > > > > To: dev@maven.apache.org <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for Enhancement: Dependency Overrides > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 2021-08-25 um 20:51 schrieb Enno Thieleke: > > > > > > > > Hello again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some days have passed and I didn't want to distract you people > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > releasing the new version of Maven, but now that it's done, I'm > > > > > > > > getting > > > > > > > > > > > back to this topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm asking for the opinion of the Maven PMC and committers > > > > > > > > regarding > > > > > > > > > > > this feature. I'd like to see some sort of dependency > > > > > > > > > > > > override/replacement > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism. One that's powerful, yet easy to use, which doesn't > > > > > > > > require > > > > > > > > > > > boilerplate XML and which leaves the dependency graph virtually > > > > > > > > > > untouched > > > > > > > > > > > > (by that I mean the shape of the graph remains the same, unless > > > > > > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > > > > > > transitive dependencies are brought into play by > > > > > > > > > > overrides/replacements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you people think of such a feature. > > > > > > Maybe a > > > > > > > > > vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > is in order, but I'm not sure and I wouldn't know how to call > > > > > > > for > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > properly here. Please tell me how to proceed. I'm only willing > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > > > > more time to this, if I have an ok from you that it'll be merged > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > meets the quality standards of the Maven project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said previously, this perfectly makes sense, but having > > > > > > > this > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Core means that someone needs to create an issue, proposal and a > > > > > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > Consider that no one of us is getting paid on this, so free time > > > > > > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it comes from the community, I see little chances to have > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
