For the record, note that I didn't argue that maven should do the same
than ivy.  Ivy has a general philosophy of flexibility.  Maven has a
philosophy of promoting good practices.

I guess that both should be consistent with their general pholosophy...

But I didn't answered to the question "Is it a good practice to adapt
your conflict manager in function of your context ?".


2008/5/28 Michael McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I concur with John,
>
> The key problem with plugable conflict resolution is that in my case I use
> hundreds of open source artifacts that all have interdepdencies that work
> based on the current maven conflict resolution model...
>
> If you make it pluggable where do you start and end with any strategy, how do
> you get a consistent and understandable resolution.
>
> One "good" library to bring up would be commons-logging, it ubiquitous many
> things depend on it. I exclude it because I prefer to use slf4j. If libraries
> I use have there own strategy could they then override my exclusion or force
> the tree to resolve such that my exclusions are in the wrong place.
>
> To me its like saying people should drive on any side of the road, depending
> on whats best for them. We don't do that we all drive on the same side of the
> road in any given country so that we can use the road "safely" with other
> users in a consistent manner.
>
>> > 2008/5/28 John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> Brett,
>> >>
>> >> I'd be happy to work on implementing it, but I'm wary of the idea of
>> >> pluggable strategies for something as fundamental as version conflict
>> >> resolution.  I agree that any new behavior needs to be switched on
>> >> with a flag in the pom file in order to avoid breaking legacy builds,
>> >> but beyond that I don't see much value in letting the user select a
>> >> strategy.  When is an alternate strategy appropriate, and how is a
>> >> user supposed to make that decision?  The sad fact is that pom files
>> >> don't provide enough information to reliably resolve conflicting
>> >> versions or detect when no resolution is possible.  Any strategy is
>> >> just a heuristic that will be wrong in some cases, so IMHO it's better
>> >> to have a single strategy that's easy to understand and override when
>> >> necessary than to have multiple strategies that all fail in different
>> >> ways.
>> >>
>> >> jw
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Michael McCallum
> Enterprise Engineer
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>



-- 
Gilles Scokart

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to