How does an artifact has 2 types (it is the main issue with this design)? Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 11:05, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a écrit :
> So, just for fun, I used MIMA /w local mods (MIMA is vanilla mvn39 models + > resolver1) to resolve one of my demo modules: > (neglect the root type of "dinosaur"...Also, this is really simplified, > _resolving_ this graph would FAIL, as MIMA has no idea what "module" type > is, as can be seen in GAVs, where extension="module"=type) > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/79f9a01d661209fe302ba92b0de9ab69 > > It shows how even pure resolver 1.x behaves, just check the tree for > "annotation-processor" and "module" types, everything is there. > Basically, even though resolver1 API is able to express these things, the > problem is that the Maven3 API is not (ArtifactHandler). > > T > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 10:43 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > wrote: > > > Well, I have to disagree... > > > > Maven Core has no idea what "add to classpath" means, and the flag is not > > even used in core. Same would stand for MP etc. > > Maven Core (simplified: the POM) tells WHAT IT IS only. > > > > Maven Plugin is the one who uses the core provided information to process > > things. So Plugin should know HOW TO USE IT. > > > > This is an important distinction in Maven, as otherwise plugin logic > would > > creep into core (like it did with site in Maven2) or other way around... > > > > Basically, IMO types are good as it is, as you describe what it is (or > > what you think it is), and plugin by using APIs (and yes, maybe some > > "hints" from config) should be able to deduce how to make use of those > > things. > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 10:35 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes, this is the part I find broken in maven design (even mvn3) 1nd hope > >> we > >> stop abusing. > >> Also note it keeps the flag per maven module whereas we have a need per > >> plugin. > >> So first step is to fix plugin config to get them filters of artifacts > per > >> their "paths" and sounds like it will be sufficient, no? > >> Type would just make some non sufficient (maybe convenient, im not > >> convinced from my XP but will not fight on this) default and transitive > >> issues but sounds like solething to do some years after the plugin > config > >> fix. > >> > >> Do we want to normalize the way to filter maven module artifacts in > plugin > >> configs? > >> > >> Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 10:25, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > >> écrit : > >> > >> > So, just to explain w/ code: > >> > In Maven3 ArtifactHandler (type=id selects a handler) looks like this: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L55 > >> > > >> > And you can spot the two boolean "lfags": addedToClasspath (CP) and > >> > includesDependencies (ID). > >> > > >> > Maven4 master corresponding Type looks like this: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java#L80 > >> > > >> > Same two boolean flags. > >> > > >> > In my PoC PR this is generalized: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/cstamas/maven/blob/module-experiment/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java > >> > > >> > === > >> > > >> > In mvn3 realm (mvn3 plugin) here is an example how an artifact lands > on > >> CP: > >> > the flag is checked > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/maven-surefire-common/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/surefire/TestClassPath.java#L63 > >> > > >> > And from that point on, starts the "guesswork" (is it a module maybe?) > >> > > >> > A mvn4 plugin could make much fine-grainer checks (CP, MP etc). My > idea > >> was > >> > really just to make things _explicit_. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > T > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 9:58 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Well, even mvn3 works like it today, except it has "fixed set" of > >> flags. > >> > > All i did is opened up the number of possible flags, added MP (next > to > >> > > existing CP flag from mvn 3). Types were really eztensible in mvn3 > as > >> > well, > >> > > but less expressive with fixed set of flags. > >> > > > >> > > Basically even in mvn3, an artifact lands on CP if it has CP flag > >> set... > >> > > No radical change in this area. > >> > > > >> > > T > >> > > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, 08:49 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Doesnt it mean you dont need type at all. > >> > >> I understand the idea to add new method in the handler but this is > >> > really > >> > >> a > >> > >> weird design and still blocked by the predefined set so user is > still > >> > >> locked by design so not sure how it helps to rely on type. > >> > >> > >> > >> Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 21:44, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > a > >> > >> écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >> > Just 5 cents: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Plugins (as "consumer of dependency") would NOT handle with type > >> > >> > _directlty_, but the _flags_. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > So, if you look at this table (a bit outdated): > >> > >> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > m-compiler-p: handles artifacts flagged with CP, MP, AP > >> > >> > m-javadoc-p: handles artifacts flagged with DOC > >> > >> > and so on (just roughly to explain the idea). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > And nothing stops you to declare as many types as many needed (to > >> > >> describe > >> > >> > what you want), the plugins will go for flags only. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > So in short: plugins will not go for type, the go for flags > >> defined by > >> > >> > types (and many type can use same flag) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > T > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 9:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 20:55, Martin Desruisseaux < > >> > >> > > martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit : > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Le 2023-11-03 à 19 h 33, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> putting a dependency on the module-path of a non-JPMS > >> > application > >> > >> > > > >> such as Spring is okay > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Is not ok for me and is a big hidden bug of current guess > >> logic > >> > >> when > >> > >> > > > > not disabled IMHO, we should drop all that guess code > >> probably. > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > The current guess code in Maven 3 puts the dependency on the > >> > >> > class-path, > >> > >> > > > which in my understanding is the behaviour that you want. The > >> > <type> > >> > >> > > > proposal would put the dependency on whatever path the <type> > >> said > >> > >> it > >> > >> > > > should be. If the user is not okay with that, (s)he can > >> override > >> > in > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > same way that (s)he can override the version of transitive > >> > >> > dependencies. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Means you create as much type as plugin*pathTypePerPlugin, > looks > >> > >> > overkill. > >> > >> > > And just using class/module paths does not work, so ultimately > >> > plugins > >> > >> > will > >> > >> > > need filters and maybe just rely on scopes+filters - still > >> trying to > >> > >> > find a > >> > >> > > solution making eveyone happy. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > A dependency may be designed for working only on the module > >> path > >> > >> (it is > >> > >> > > > developer's choice as any other software requirement, such as > >> the > >> > >> > > > minimal Java version), which is why I think that by default, > >> > >> dependency > >> > >> > > > should go where the library producer said that it should go. > >> But > >> > >> again, > >> > >> > > > users can override if they want. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Then question is how do you enable modules but this is not > a > >> > >> question > >> > >> > > > > for your maven module but per plugin (jaxws plugin will not > >> use > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > > same modules than compiler nor javadoc for ex). This is > where > >> > the > >> > >> > type > >> > >> > > > > proposal is not granular enough to handle advanced cases we > >> are > >> > >> > > > > talking about > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Are you referring to the --add-modules or --limit-modules > >> options > >> > of > >> > >> > > > Java? If so, I think that they are compatible with the <type> > >> > >> proposal > >> > >> > > > and can be discussed in a next step. The first step that we > are > >> > >> trying > >> > >> > > > to resolve now is to build the module-path. Next, it is > indeed > >> > >> possible > >> > >> > > > to tell Java to "see" only a subset of the modules available > on > >> > the > >> > >> > > > module-path. I think that this option is more typically used > >> when > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > module-path is a whole directory instead than an enumeration > of > >> > >> > > > dependencies as Maven does. If users nevertheless want to use > >> the > >> > >> > > > --add-modules or --limit-modules options, maybe they could be > >> > >> options > >> > >> > of > >> > >> > > > the exec plugin. Those options are not paths, only > >> comma-separated > >> > >> > lists > >> > >> > > > of modules names. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Yes, but you just added a jaxws type to maven core - see why > this > >> > does > >> > >> > not > >> > >> > > scale/work? > >> > >> > > Just means we cant get external plugins anymore or we will > >> > duplicate a > >> > >> > lot > >> > >> > > deps (same gav different type...please no). > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > (…snip…) ie put all the code in src/main cause by design it > >> is > >> > >> what > >> > >> > > > > you want, a single module where maven creates 2 modules per > >> > maven > >> > >> > > module > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > I'm not sure if you are talking about the Java compiler's > >> "Module > >> > >> > Source > >> > >> > > > Hierarchy" here. If yes, this is indeed something that I > would > >> > like, > >> > >> > but > >> > >> > > > I'm not trying to push that for Maven (I presume that it > would > >> be > >> > a > >> > >> too > >> > >> > > > big change). My hope for Maven has smaller scope: module-path > >> and > >> > >> > making > >> > >> > > > easier to setup the --add-exports and --add-opens options. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > This already works with maven, needs to tune the folder layouts > >> and > >> > a > >> > >> few > >> > >> > > plugins - and to be honest I hope it never becomes the default, > >> so > >> > not > >> > >> > sure > >> > >> > > what misses there. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Not sure I understand the issue, you highlight a bug in > exec > >> > maven > >> > >> > > > > plugin (classpath and module path configuration share a > >> single > >> > >> toggle > >> > >> > > > > - and toString BTW) but ultimately you misconfigured the > >> plugin > >> > >> too: > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks for the configuration tip, but it works by setting the > >> > >> > > > --class-path and --module-path options in the <arguments> > >> block of > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > exec-maven-plugin. My issue was also execution with surefire, > >> > >> javadoc, > >> > >> > > > etc. All plugins need the same configuration. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > It is the same there, nothing relates to depency type (which is > >> my > >> > >> > point). > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > it is really about getting split paths more easily than > >> getting > >> > a > >> > >> > > > > global for the maven module configuration which will > prevent > >> you > >> > >> to > >> > >> > > > > configure accurately each plugin which is actually required > >> for > >> > >> these > >> > >> > > > > advanced JPMS cases (jaxws is really a hurting case). > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Global configuration is also desirable. Per-plugin tuning may > >> also > >> > >> be > >> > >> > > > desirable, but there is good chances that they would be > >> > >> modifications > >> > >> > of > >> > >> > > > the global configuration instead of something independent > >> > (providing > >> > >> > > > that the global configuration has the <type> proposal). > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > I see a lot of overlap but no 1-1 cases except on simple > >> projects. > >> > >> > > Compiler != Surefire != Javadoc for ex, this is why type looks > >> very > >> > >> > > limiting until combinable or each plugin has filter capability > >> which > >> > >> also > >> > >> > > mean type is useless. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Agree, default should stay classpath and module path > >> shouldn't > >> > be > >> > >> > > > > enabled until requested, creates too much weird behaviors > >> IMHO. > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Weird behaviour happens when the library is not on the path > it > >> was > >> > >> > > > designed for. Weird behaviour if we put a > >> designed-for-class-path > >> > >> > > > dependency on the module-path, and potentially broken > >> behaviour if > >> > >> we > >> > >> > > > put a designed-for-module-path dependency on the class-path. > >> The > >> > >> reason > >> > >> > > > why we do not observe the latter often is because library > >> > producers > >> > >> are > >> > >> > > > aware that the Java world is still a lot class-path centric, > >> and > >> > >> > > > provides workaround in their library for making execution on > >> > >> class-path > >> > >> > > > possible. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Exactly! > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Martin > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
