On 28 June 2011 14:01, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The critical scope to add for me is something along the lines of >> "provides" or "supplies" or "embeds-equivalent" >> > > Why is this a scope and not just more configuration inside the > <dependency/> element? > > <dependency> > <!-- gav --> > <alsoProvides> > <alsoProvide> > <!-- gav --> > </alsoProvide> > </alsoProvides> > </dependency> >
Because why should I have to always state that I'm using org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j and that it provides log4j:log4j much better that the pom for org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j says "oh and by the way I provide log4j:log4j myself so you don't need to pull it in transitively if you depend on me" maven could then break the build for you if you pull in log4j:log4j and org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j just as it does if you try to pull in two different versions of log4j:log4j and it could ensure that a project that depends on org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j never has log4j:log4j in its dependency tree. People will say that OSGi is the real answer here, and that you have to... blah blah blah... we are in the real world here, OSGi is good for some things and not for others, Maven needs a solution that is better than having to add <excludes><exclude><groupId>log4j</groupId><artifactId>log4j</artifactId></exclude></excludes> to _all_ the dependencies in your project just because you have added a dependency on org.slf4j:log4j-over-slf4j > > >> So that when computing the dependency tree, we could automatically >> exclude dependencies that are already provided or supplied or embedded >> in another dependency. >> >> The sticking point for me is that it needs a good name different from >> "provided" >> >>>> this easier to explain. Try writing a paragraph of doc that we'd put >>>> in the pom doc to explain 'provided' if we decide to just stick with >>>> this. >>>> >>>> However, I have a really simple idea. What if we permitted *no scope >>>> at all* for non-jar artifacts to serve this purpose? >>>> >>> >>> no scope => compile (modello default value) >>> >>> also dependency on war artifacts is used for war overlays.... >>> >>> what I am thinking is that if we change the war plugin so that only >>> scope compile wars are used for overlays, then tomcat maven plugin is >>> free to use either provided and/or runtime as the scope for >>> side-deployment... runtime could be good if you always needed it as a >>> side webapp (e.g. the ear plugin could then pull those runtime wars in >>> transitively, while the provided would behave as non-transitive) >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Stephen Connolly >>>> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> the wars are really side web apps that are provided by somebody else at >>>>> deployment time in the runtime container. >>>>> >>>>> just as the server api is provided by somebody else. >>>>> >>>>> the tomcat plugin is providing the container, so as it knows those side >>>>> apps >>>>> are not present it would make sense to me if it provided them for me. just >>>>> like when running unit tests, surfer will provide the provided deps on my >>>>> test classpath. >>>>> >>>>> what i am saying is tomato does not need a special scope. symmantically >>>>> their required scope is provided. >>>>> >>>>> - Stephen >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense >>>>> words and other nonsense are a direct result of using swype to type on the >>>>> screen >>>>> On 28 Jun 2011 00:46, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The tomcat wars are NOT provided. The idea is to grab them from the >>>>>> repositories, copy them to the local repo, and have the tomcat plugin >>>>>> 'collect them all.' >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't know that maven already had the concept of non-classpath >>>>>> artifact types. I've been laboring under the idea that these things >>>>>> would end up in the classpath if not excluded somehow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tomcat could stop using the special scope, but then it would need to >>>>>> redundantly list these artifacts in its own config, unless the author >>>>>> were willing to take the attitude that *all* war dependencies should >>>>>> be launched. Using foo:bar syntax instead of a nest of XML that is >>>>>> perhaps not too awful, but it still feels like listing the same thing >>>>>> twice. Hmm: how does the new site plugin avoid this? With the new site >>>>>> plugin, can you built a reporting plugin in the reactor and then use >>>>>> it in a site? I bet not. >>>>>> >>>>>> In short, I'm arguing for some idea of annotating dependencies to >>>>>> avoid redundantly calling them out in plugins, but I'm not arguing >>>>>> terribly loudly. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Stephen Connolly >>>>>> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 28 June 2011 00:15, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Consider the tomcat use case, and then mine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The tomcat use-case is: declare additional artifacts of type/packaging >>>>>>>> 'war'. The plugin launches them as additional webapps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why won't provided work for this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> war is a non-classpath dependency... compile (default) makes sense for >>>>> overlays >>>>>>> >>>>>>> provided -> supplied by the container... in this case tomcat >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My use case: This artifact of code, here, depends on that giant >>>>>>>> artifact of data, there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In both cases, the dependency *does* need to be copied to the local >>>>>>>> repo, but does *not* want to be in classpath. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then that is a non-classpath artifact type unless i mis-understand your >>>>> case >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, what would you think of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <dependency> >>>>>>>> <!-- gav --> >>>>>>>> <scope>non-classpath</scope> >>>>>>>> <list>tomcat</list> >>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is, define the concept of a named list of dependencies, which >>>>>>>> seems harmlessly extensible, while defining exactly one more scope, to >>>>>>>> use for this purpose? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Connolly >>>>>>>> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Allowing people to have custom scopes is a thin end of the wedge... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The scopes we have are not sufficient, so I am +1 to expanding them >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Custom scopes are a recipe for disaster... the whole point of >>>>>>>>> standardization is that everyone knows what they mean. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Currently we have: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> compile - which we have borked to be transitive but shouldn't be >>>>>>>>> runtime - fair enough >>>>>>>>> provided - which is closer to what compile should have been >>>>>>>>> test - not good enough for the multitude of testing phases >>>>>>>>> system - Eeek! don't use >>>>>>>>> import - nobody has a clue what exactly this does >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Critically missing from my PoV are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> provides - needs a better name, but I want to signify that I provide a >>>>>>>>> specific GAV in my pom so that you don't bother trying to pull it in >>>>>>>>> for another dep... eg. log4j-over-slf4 would provides log4j >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> test-compile >>>>>>>>> test-runtime >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> some scope that is like compile & runtime but not the test >>>>>>>>> classpath... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually the more I think about it what you really want to specify, in >>>>>>>>> a standardized way is the list of classpaths to add to, and whether it >>>>>>>>> is transitive on that classpath... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And of course in the non-maven world, classpath does not make sense... >>>>>>>>> but there are equivalents >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <dependency> >>>>>>>>> <groupId>...</groupId> >>>>>>>>> <artifactId>...</artifactId> >>>>>>>>> <version>...</version> >>>>>>>>> <scopes> >>>>>>>>> <scope> >>>>>>>>> <name>compile</name> >>>>>>>>> <transitive>true</transitive> >>>>>>>>> </scope> >>>>>>>>> <scope> >>>>>>>>> <name>runtime</name> >>>>>>>>> <transitive>false</transitive> >>>>>>>>> </scope> >>>>>>>>> <scope> >>>>>>>>> <name>test</name> >>>>>>>>> <transitive>true</transitive> >>>>>>>>> </scope> >>>>>>>>> </scopes> >>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Man that's ugly >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27 June 2011 23:27, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Two options in my head: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) Eliminate the warning. >>>>>>>>>> 2) Allow some means for officially defining scopes -- the problem >>>>>>>>>> being that the consumer is the logical place for the definition. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2011/6/27 Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any pointer in mind except this page which doesn't say >>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>> than a stricter validation of POM : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/MAVEN/maven-3x-compatibility-notes.html#Maven3.xCompatibilityNotes-StricterPOMValidation >>>>>>>>>>> But that right that in maven 2 we just ignored unknown scopes while >>>>> maven 3 >>>>>>>>>>> throws a warning >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Benson Margulies < >>>>> bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In looking at the tomcat plugin, I noticed that it depends on using >>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> custom scope, and there was commentary complaining that maven 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> complains. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a thread or a JIRA about this? I'm contemplating creating >>>>>>>>>>>> something like this of my own, and I'd like to know what trouble >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> getting myself into. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
