On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we make <optional>true</optional> by default? > > Or what I mean can we have instead a <mandatory>true</mandatory> instead of > <optional>?
That would be a very bad idea. In most cases (flavor are really not most cases) you require the dependencies you indicated. > > I fear that devs will forget to put <optional>. Again this matters for > builds that group modules as dependencies, although are not really needed. > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> So we now have the concept of optional dependencies at Extension >> Manager level. This are dependencies that are installed by default >> (but if they fail they don't fail the whole install) and which can be >> uninstalled without any impact on what is no longer it's backward >> dependency. >> >> On Maven -> EM side what I did is reuse <optional>true</optional> >> mostly the following reason: there is no way in pom.xml to put custom >> stuff in <dependency> so it would be a huge pain to maintain a list of >> optional dependencies from a property at general pom level. >> >> The issue is that the behavior of this <optional> is not exactly the >> same in EM and Maven: in Maven those dependencies are NOT triggered by >> default. Still, apart from this it's supposed to be the same meaning >> and it should not be an issue to install this dependency (if it is >> then it means you should have used something else like >> <scope>provided</scope>) but as usually since there is no official way >> in Maven to say "I just want to use that during the build and it does >> not make any sens to get this dependency" some projects may have used >> it that way. >> >> So do you think it is OK ? It's not acceptable and we absolutely need >> to move this kind of information in some general property in the pom >> <properties> ? >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> -- Thomas Mortagne
