The fat* mechanism is already present even in maven 3.9, but not so visible: https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L51
Is "fat" when this method returns true. Moreover, the new type would give you (as a consumer) more control, it allows you to NOT depend on upstream publisher (is he rewriting POM? Does he do a good job rewriting it? etc). If you declare your dependency as "fatjar" and not just "jar", or "fatmodule" not just "module", it makes resolver STOP. Thanks T On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:53 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > The fat* is needed to STOP resolver resolving further external > dependencies (or in-reactor ones), it gives you more control to _express_ > this case to Maven. > > Typical case: > - you have in reactor "uber" JAR built (with replace POM set) > - hence, you deploy the rewritten POM, so for consumers you are OK > - BUT _within reactor_ Maven will NOT (and cannot) be aware of _rewritten_ > module, so you need to "exclude all" in subsequent modules depending on > uber module: > > https://github.com/maveniverse/mima/blob/main/cli/pom.xml#L83-L94 > So, this one would need to be type="fatjar" and result would be same but > more expressive: > > Basically these just extend the "vocabulary" to express what it is. > > T > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Henning Schmiedehausen < > henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > >> I don't understand fatjar and fatmodule. Why would we need that? How would >> maven treat this different from a regular jar / module ? >> >> -h >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:10 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> >> wrote: >> >> > Howdy, >> > >> > The current draft of types we want to introduce (and packaging): >> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 >> > >> > === >> > >> > Romain, I don't understand your "This is wrong, downstream is either >> module >> > or jar", as it was actually you and your example that mentioned "once >> put >> > it here, once put it there". Nothing is lost IMHO, just like in case of >> > "takari-jar" nothing is lost. >> > >> > Or if we misunderstood each other: by "downstream" I mean "down the >> road, >> > when a project being built, is about to be consumed as dependency". >> > >> > And the point is, that exactly due ArtifactHandler/ArtifactType/Type (in >> > mvn4), Maven "sees" it as "jar" or "module" or whatever, but for >> resolver, >> > those two are _same thing_. It is _same file_. And this is the crux, as >> for >> > the resolver, it is really about getting that one file, while the type >> (for >> > Maven) tells HOW to make use of it. So for resolving, there is no any >> kind >> > of "lost" information, again, the very same way it works for >> "takari-jar". >> > >> > T >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 3:52 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 15:29, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a >> > > écrit : >> > > >> > > > Howdy, >> > > > >> > > > So to return to the "root" idea (of Maven), Maven is "declarative", >> > where >> > > > users should declare what they want, it should most certainly not >> > "guess" >> > > > what user intent is. As long as we have "magical implicit guesswork" >> > > (like >> > > > that in javadoc) present in process, it is bad, as that means we do >> not >> > > > allow our users to express their goal. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Yes and i liked that but we broke it with forcing plugin version >> locking >> > > (for good) so we can need to revise our root too to match current >> world >> > > which is no more unique, makes years we ignore that fact but it >> already >> > > blows up. >> > > >> > > So my 2cts are we cant by design here, we tried hard and failed, not >> > > technically but by design. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Originally Mojos were envisioned to be simple, focused, doing one >> thing >> > > and >> > > > doing it well (a la UNIX tools). Some plugins went in the total >> > opposite >> > > > direction, as they became Godzilla plugins (with unmaintainable >> complex >> > > and >> > > > large amounts of "logic" -- guess logic and bloated codebase) >> targeting >> > > to >> > > > solve "everything". This also resulted in our users assuming "every >> > > problem >> > > > should have a corresponding Mojo" (this also steered toward bloated, >> > over >> > > > complex Mojos), where many many other aspects and capabilities of >> Maven >> > > > were totally neglected, like lifecycle, custom packaging and so on. >> > > > >> > > > In short, Romain, yes, today, you CAN build all sort of things in >> > "smart >> > > > way", just like cooking a soup: get a good base (packaging), add a >> > little >> > > > bit of this (mojo A) and a little bit of that (mojo B) and voila, >> you >> > > will >> > > > end up with a "soup". And it works, yes, but this "smart" way has >> many >> > > > pitfalls along the way, with most problematic of not being explicit. >> > But >> > > by >> > > > doing that, your build becomes Ant-ish (imperative-ish), and you are >> > > > sliding off the declarative path. >> > > > >> > > >> > > For cases needing it and all the mentionned ones are (and will) NOT >> (be) >> > > mainstream. >> > > So all good IMHO. >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, you ARE aware that if you build a project w/ packaging=module >> > (that >> > > > as output has an artifact with extension jar), you DON'T HAVE TO >> > address >> > > it >> > > > downstream (when you depend on it) as "module", right? This is the >> > actual >> > > > reason why I brought up Takari Lifecycle, as there you are building >> > > > projects with packaging=takari-jar, but when you consume those, you >> > refer >> > > > to them as type=jar, and not as type=takari-jar, right? >> > > > >> > > >> > > This is wrong, downstream is either module or jar, here you loose if >> it >> > is >> > > a module transitively and module assume all transitive deps are which >> is >> > > very often wrong so it does not work downstream. >> > > >> > > >> > > > So, I have a feeling that you bring bold conclusions (like "Your >> > solution >> > > > is valid technically but does not solve the original issue"), you do >> > not >> > > > really understand what I am trying to say here. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Hooe you are true but trust me i went where you are and my conclusion >> is >> > it >> > > cant be done right for enough projects to be worth it. >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, "this" certainly does NOT "work well today" (even in this >> thread >> > > poor >> > > > tooling mentioned), but true, you can hack-around it, or alike, but >> > none >> > > of >> > > > current solutions are explicit, declarative and naturally expressed >> in >> > > > Maven (but are bolted on). >> > > > >> > > > Finally, having anything "on top" of resolver is not gonna help >> > anything, >> > > > as Resolver is really about Artifacts only (Everything is an >> Artifact!) >> > > and >> > > > it is Maven on top of Resolver that should interpret these artifacts >> > > based >> > > > on user posed instructions (declarations). Resolver is really just >> > about >> > > > "getting" and "putting" artifacts, not USING them. >> > > > >> > > >> > > It foes cause it is not aboug resolver but enabling user to express >> path >> > > with maven abstraction, not resolution itself. >> > > >> > > Java is about paths, maven coordinates, we miss a link on user land to >> > make >> > > it smooth. >> > > >> > > >> > > > Thanks >> > > > T >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:56 PM Tamás Cservenák < >> ta...@cservenak.net> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Romain, >> > > > > >> > > > > it's probably me, but I have no faintest idea what you are trying >> to >> > > > say... >> > > > > >> > > > > What do you mean by "standalone"? >> > > > > What is the wrong packaging? >> > > > > Why will I lose the ability to specify where it goes? Also, as I >> said >> > > > > before, if you list project/deps gav:jar AND gav:module, you >> would be >> > > > > putting _one same JAR_ on both paths (would you really want that?) >> > > > > Also, here we are speaking about _dependencies_ but you suddenly >> > switch >> > > > to >> > > > > building a project? >> > > > > >> > > > > But one thing for sure: we need _less_ "guess logic" and not >> _more of >> > > > it_. >> > > > > >> > > > > I think we are not talking about the same thing(s) here, but >> again, >> > > it's >> > > > > just maybe me. >> > > > > >> > > > > T >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:44, Tamás Cservenák < >> ta...@cservenak.net> >> > a >> > > > >> écrit : >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > Can you provide a real example? As I don't quite understand, so >> > you >> > > > >> would >> > > > >> > have a dependency (a fat spring boot jar), that is a "module >> dep >> > is >> > > a >> > > > >> > module in compile/some tests but not at runtime (spring boot >> > > fatjar)". >> > > > >> So >> > > > >> > all this within one maven module (compile/test/runtime?). >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> You have an app (src/main/java), all the chain down the line uses >> > > > modules >> > > > >> cause compiler is standalone, surefire (junit-launcher) is >> > standalone, >> > > > >> javadoc etc...and the packaging phase (jar/war/fatjar/...) is not >> > > > >> standalone. >> > > > >> Then using module will make your build pass but your IT (if you >> have >> > > > else >> > > > >> your runtime) will not use that kind of construction/runtime. >> > > > >> the issue is as soon as you mark them modules then it must be >> module >> > > for >> > > > >> all plugins and therefore you will get a wrong packaging (think >> bnd >> > > for >> > > > >> ex) >> > > > >> or said otherwise you loose the consumption ability the JVM has >> > > > providing >> > > > >> both classpath and module path for the same jar (jlink requires >> deps >> > > to >> > > > be >> > > > >> modules but these modules can be used in the classpath most of >> the >> > > time, >> > > > >> in >> > > > >> particular in tests where it helps in several scenarii like >> > mocking). >> > > > >> >> > > > >> These are all valid features we don't want to break in maven. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> The consuming side is problematic since you restart from scratch, >> > all >> > > > the >> > > > >> jpms meta are to throw away cause we don't want to break the >> model >> > on >> > > > one >> > > > >> side and on another side it depends the consumer the way you >> consume >> > > it >> > > > >> and >> > > > >> dispatch the dependency on the classpath or module path. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Your solution is valid technically but does not solve the >> original >> > > > issue, >> > > > >> it just moves it elsewhere IMHO. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> This already works well today at the cost of being explicit in >> the >> > > > plugins >> > > > >> configs and with your proposal it will still work at the same >> cost >> > > > (maybe >> > > > >> reversed). >> > > > >> >> > > > >> So ultimately I don't think it is a dep meta we need but more a >> > > wrapper >> > > > on >> > > > >> top of the resolver (the guess logic we have in plexus for ex) >> which >> > > > >> should >> > > > >> be easier to configure, maybe globally for the project and >> > ultimately >> > > > per >> > > > >> plugin (think "configuration" in gradle world of maven depencies >> set >> > > in >> > > > >> our >> > > > >> world)....or we just don't do anything and ease the dependency >> > > > referencing >> > > > >> (gav->path) to ease this explicit configuration - a bit like >> > including >> > > > >> dependencies:properties in core by default. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > T >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:12, Tamás Cservenák < >> > > ta...@cservenak.net> >> > > > a >> > > > >> > > écrit : >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Given that jar (spring boot fatjar) is once this once that, >> > you >> > > > >> refer >> > > > >> > to >> > > > >> > > it >> > > > >> > > > in deps as needed: >> > > > >> > > > in one module is fat:jar in other is fat:module, as needed. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > You are the one explicitly telling what you want. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > In my example (and spring boot is not the only one, wars are >> > > another >> > > > >> > common >> > > > >> > > one, or any java command more generally) the two modules are >> a >> > > > single >> > > > >> > > one....and no doing two module would be worse than what we >> have >> > > > today. >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks >> > > > >> > > > T >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:42 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > > >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Interesting but common case: a module dep is a module in >> > > > >> compile/some >> > > > >> > > > tests >> > > > >> > > > > but not at runtime (spring boot fatjar). >> > > > >> > > > > Back to explicit config in plugins and drop new module >> type? >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 07:46, Christoph Läubrich < >> > > > >> > m...@laeubi-soft.de> >> > > > >> > > a >> > > > >> > > > > écrit : >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > And if now I could supply additional properties from >> the >> > > > >> xml-model >> > > > >> > > ... >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Am 29.10.23 um 00:40 schrieb Tamás Cservenák: >> > > > >> > > > > > > And finally this is hardly gonna happen in Maven 3 >> > > lifespan, >> > > > >> as >> > > > >> > > sadly >> > > > >> > > > > > > ArtifactHandler of it is quite limited: has only one >> > flag: >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L55 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Sadly, Maven4 Type continued on this path, but >> luckily >> > we >> > > > are >> > > > >> in >> > > > >> > > > alpha, >> > > > >> > > > > > and >> > > > >> > > > > > > will propose a PR to type that currently looks like >> > this: >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java#L80 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > And would rework it to be more (if not same as) the >> > > resolver >> > > > >> > > > > > ArtifactType: >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactType.java#L63 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, for example >> > "add >> > > to >> > > > >> > > > classpath" >> > > > >> > > > > > is >> > > > >> > > > > > > really just one flag (added by ArifactType): >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactProperties.java#L58 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > So, ArtifactProperties could be extended with >> > > > >> > > > "constitutesModulePath", >> > > > >> > > > > > > "agent" and so on... To make this really extensible. >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > In maven3 the ArtifactHandler this makes it >> impossible. >> > > > There >> > > > >> is >> > > > >> > > > still >> > > > >> > > > > > hope >> > > > >> > > > > > > in Maven 4 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks >> > > > >> > > > > > > T >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:32 AM Tamás Cservenák < >> > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net> >> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> This would also mean, that if you have a dependency >> > that >> > > is >> > > > >> > > already >> > > > >> > > > > JPMS >> > > > >> > > > > > >> modularized (is java9+ and has module-info), then: >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> a) if you declare it as type="jar" it means you >> want to >> > > put >> > > > >> it >> > > > >> > on >> > > > >> > > > > > >> classpath (use it as "plain old jar") >> > > > >> > > > > > >> b) if you declare it as type="module" it means you >> want >> > > it >> > > > on >> > > > >> > > > > modulepath >> > > > >> > > > > > >> etc >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:30 AM Tamás Cservenák < >> > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Of course, the logic HOW and WHAT to make with >> these >> > > would >> > > > >> be >> > > > >> > > > needed >> > > > >> > > > > to >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> be added to javadoc, compiler and all the plugins >> that >> > > > need >> > > > >> to >> > > > >> > > > > > distinguish. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> But this would stop any need for any heuristic, >> > > guesswork, >> > > > >> > > > > smart-ness, >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> etc... >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> OTOH, if we introduce new packaging lifecycle >> "module" >> > > > (so a >> > > > >> > > > project >> > > > >> > > > > > that >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> builds module would do project/packaging=module), >> it >> > > could >> > > > >> > nicely >> > > > >> > > > > > enforce >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> things like: >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - prevent non allowed packages >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - enforce presence of module-info.class (maybe some >> > > light >> > > > >> > > > > verification) >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - ensure project is Java9+ etc >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Most of this was somewhat done in Takari Lifecycle >> > (also >> > > > >> with >> > > > >> > > > custom >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> packaging like "takari-jar" was). >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> T >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:26 AM Tamás Cservenák < >> > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So, basically this is what am proposing: >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > >> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/76f262538b5a11f6ee23d6d8c86f10ec >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Basically, Maven core (and hence plugins) could >> > > > distinguish >> > > > >> > > among >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different "types" of dependencies (while would all >> > > still >> > > > be >> > > > >> > > plain >> > > > >> > > > > > JARs). >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So "jar" would be put on classpath, "module" on >> > module >> > > > >> path, >> > > > >> > > > "agent" >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> would got special treatment and so on. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Point is to _differentiate_. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> T >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Tamás Cservenák < >> > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Unsure from where you get that, but is wrong >> > > conclusion. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> You can have dep1:jar, dep2:module, dep3:agent >> and >> > > all 3 >> > > > >> MAY >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (ArtifactHandler dependent, assuming "jar", >> "module" >> > > and >> > > > >> > > "agent" >> > > > >> > > > > > artifact >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> handlers all return extension=jar) refer to the >> same >> > > JAR >> > > > >> file >> > > > >> > > in >> > > > >> > > > > > your local >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> repository. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Type merely adds "semantics" WHAT is it about, >> HOW >> > to >> > > > make >> > > > >> > use >> > > > >> > > of >> > > > >> > > > > it. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Please see >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://maven.apache.org/repositories/artifacts.html#but-where-do-i-set-artifact-extension >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> T >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:17 AM Martin >> > Desruisseaux < >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Le 2023-10-28 à 22 h 54, Tamás Cservenák a >> écrit : >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I still see these just as new dependency types: >> > > > >> "module", >> > > > >> > > > > "agent", >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> "doclet", and so on. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Does "dependency type" means the <type> element >> > > inside >> > > > >> > > > > <dependency>? >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> If >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> yes, then specifying a different type causes >> Maven >> > to >> > > > >> > > download a >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> different JAR, without changing the kind of path >> > > (class >> > > > >> path >> > > > >> > > > > versus >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> module path) where the JAR is put. The proposed >> > > <usage> >> > > > >> > > element >> > > > >> > > > > (or >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> whatever equivalent alternatives) has the >> opposite >> > > > >> semantic: >> > > > >> > > it >> > > > >> > > > > does >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> not >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> change the JAR to download, but put it on a >> > different >> > > > >> kind >> > > > >> > of >> > > > >> > > > > path. >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Martin >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> 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 >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
