On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > >> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, 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> ? > > I don’t really know. I hope it’s fine. We already have usages of the maven > optional keyword in our POMs; will it work for those use cases? (haven’t > checked but AFAIR it should work the same since we used those for optional > deps in XAR modules but probably needs a closer look).
I'm not really worried about our stuff, if we are using <optional> wrongly (i.e. for forbidden stuff and not optional stuff) I will fix them. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne > -- Thomas Mortagne
