Hi Paul

I'm not at my desk so I can't check dependency:tree but I wouldn't expect a
different output.

You also shouldn't loose track of module dependency requirements the
dependency is still listed in the child pom it's just missing it's version
attribute. Parameterization seems like a lot of overkill and maintenance
that would get ignored pretty quickly and gains you little.

Tom
On 6 Aug 2015 14:42, "Ramirez, Paul M (398M)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Tom,
>
> An alternate approach would be to leave the dependencies as is but manage
> the versions as properties in the top level pom. With this patch we lose
> traceability of what dependencies are required where. This alternate
> approach would make overrides easier for people too as it would stand as a
> placeholder for folks to substitute out a property reference with a version.
>
> With this we lose the utility of "mvn dependency:tree"
>
> I'd align the property name with the fully qualified artifact name that
> way there was a clear mapping. I think this would accomplish what you were
> looking to do.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Paul
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Paul Ramirez - Group Supervisor
> Computer Science for Data Intensive Applications
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> 4800 Oak Grove Dr.
> Pasadena, CA 91109
> Office: 818-354-1015
> Cell: 818-395-8194
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:18 AM, Tom Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I sent a pull request last night but its also worth discussing on here.
> >
> > When me an StarchMD were having a chat in Austin, we wanted to sort out
> > some of the build process and locations.
> >
> > Personally one of my issues when using OODT is the sheer amount of
> > dependencies. Clearly most of these are required, but keeping track of
> the
> > versions across modules is a pain. The pull request you see here:
> > https://github.com/apache/oodt/pull/25 addresses that by moving the
> > versions from the sub modules up to OODT Core so when a version is
> changed
> > it is changed in all the submodules. This removes a lot of the
> duplication
> > and I believe it makes it easier to see which version is being used.
> >
> > If there is a requirement to override a specific version of a dependency
> in
> > a submodule this can still be done, but it would also be nicer, in my
> > opinion, just upgrade the main dependency so that all modules rely on the
> > same version which makes integration a whole lot easier.
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
>

Reply via email to