On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:27 AM, ant elder (JIRA) >> <dev@tuscany.apache.org> wrote: >>> Aggregate JARs don't work with Maven >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> Key: TUSCANY-3721 >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3721 >>> Project: Tuscany >>> Issue Type: Bug >>> Reporter: ant elder >>> Fix For: Java-SCA-2.0-Beta1 >>> >>> >>> The new aggregate JARs don't work with Maven because the shade plugin isn't >>> configured to promote transitive dependencies which that means all the >>> individual module jars are still included as transitive dependencies and >>> added to the classpath. Updating the shade config to promote transitive >>> dependencies also doesn't work as the shade plugin doesn't work with pom >>> type dependencies. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. >>> - >>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. >>> >>> >> >> I've yet to try this out and really understand what the issue is here >> so my next comment may be rubbish but.... >> >> I wonder whether this really matters. We have other poms that describe >> the contents of aggregate jars so do we need the user to be able to >> depend on the aggregated jar itself from Maven? >> > > I'd like to fix it as i prefer the aggregate jars to the pom type > approach. If they are fixed then that question could be flipped around > to be: if we have the aggregate jars do users really need to use the > pom type dependencies? > > To put this in (my) perspective look at whats common practice in other > projects. I can point at lots of projects that aggregate small modules > into easier to manage and use aggregate jars. On the other hand i > don't know of a single other project in the world that you use with a > pom type dependency. Take the Tuscany build as an example - it uses > zillions of dependencies but not a single one is a pom type > dependency. What ever the pros and cons the pom type approach is much > less common, and that makes sense to me as fewer jars and dependencies > is simpler. > > I think its good to try to have Tuscany work in as normal a way as > possible because that makes it easier for people getting started with > Tuscany. This is why i keep on trying have things be "normal" in > Tuscany - the Maven build to use the standard build commands, the IDE > setup to use standard IDE set up, the Tuscany APIs to match what the > SCA specs describe, etc, the aggregate base jar is just more of that. > Fine if people also want to experiment with other approaches too but i > think we should strive have the more commonly understood approaches > work as well where possible. > > ...ant
I'll give it a go as I'm still not clear what the actual problem is. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
