RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Andrew Williams wrote on Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:06 PM: > On 26 Apr 2007, at 13:20, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> >> Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two >> major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical >> commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different >> API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x >> series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the >> Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something >> like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based >> project using JCL 2.x ... > > Well kick me if I am wrong, but is this not where well managed > projects use deprecation and wrappers around the new code to work > from the old API? I know plexus and classworlds are trying to for > backwards compatibility. > > What rule states that commons-logging 2.0 cannot contain the > api from > commons-logging 1.0 with deprecated marks? I doubt that everytime > someone wants to change their API they would much rather do > that than > make a mutually exclusive, thusly cohabitable, API for the > new version. This is a decision of the project and not of Maven. Maven should be able to handle the situation though. Additionally your assumption is not valid, since a lot of projects maintain a y.x branch (e.g. to provide JDK 1.3 compatibility) and (y+1).x head with a cleaned up API and JDK 5 support only. That does not mean that the JDK 1.3 branch is obsolete or deprecated nor does it mean that no further maintenance releases will be available. Therefore I consider it even a bad idea to bundle both versions in the same jar. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 26 Apr 2007, at 13:20, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Jason, Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based project using JCL 2.x ... Well kick me if I am wrong, but is this not where well managed projects use deprecation and wrappers around the new code to work from the old API? I know plexus and classworlds are trying to for backwards compatibility. What rule states that commons-logging 2.0 cannot contain the api from commons-logging 1.0 with deprecated marks? I doubt that everytime someone wants to change their API they would much rather do that than make a mutually exclusive, thusly cohabitable, API for the new version. Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:41 PM: > On 26 Apr 07, at 10:12 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:21 PM: >> >>> On 26 Apr 07, at 8:20 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> [snip] >> Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based project using JCL 2.x ... >>> >>> I don't think we need to introduce the idea of slots. Allowing >>> multiple versions would suffice. I don't see what the slot concept >>> buys anyone except another term to be familiar with. >> >> Well, so how could this work in practice? >> >> B-2.2 depends on A-1.0.1 >> C-1.3 depends on A-2.1 >> D-1.1 depends on A-1.2 >> E-1.0 depends on C-2.2 and C-1.3 should have been: E-1.0 depends on B-2.2 and C-1.3 >> F-1.0 depends on E-1.0 and A-1.0.1 >> >> What do I have to do for E? How does Maven know that A-1.x and >> A-2.x are both necessary and that it should use A-1.2 and A-2.1? Do >> I have to add both deps explicitly to E? What does this mean for F? >> How can I manage in a parent POM the two versions of A in the >> dependencyManagement? > > The first question to answer is whether we even want to allow this > and if the complexity that would arise from situations like this are > worth it versus having N modules where each module has a different > set of dependencies. What's easier, and what's necessary. Because > there exists a solution in Gentoo for doesn't mean it's necessarily > the right one for Maven. And because people have these situations in > their builds also doesn't necessarily mean it's something ideal. Not > saying it's not worth consideration, just playing the devil's > advocate. I'm quite sure, nobody sets up something like this at free will. Typically A to at least D are third party artifacts you don't controll, but you have to manage the mess on your end dealing with environments that have themselves no clue about isolated classloaders. At this point your level of tolerance for the build tool tends to zero. ;-) > In your case here above then in dependency management we would also > support multiple versions where you could specify defaults, and if > you needed to override them in the child you would. This translates > into multiple version support all the way down in the core. >From my naive PoV, it looked easier to introduce a "slot" that behaves quite >like a classifier than implementing support for multiple versions at once. >*This* would have scared me much more. However, you're the expert with best >knowledge of the internals and you can estimate the impact much better than me. [snip] > Yes, as I said this doesn't necessarily translate into an ideal for > Maven. My default position now is the distro tools take their notions > and wind them all the way down into the core of the distro which > doesn't necessarily jive well with Maven. Again I'm not dismissing > slots and multiple versions allowable in the POM. I'm quite sure, the topic will rise again. Better to be prepared about the options, especially since M2.1 is not that far away. Anyway, thanks for your time. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 26 Apr 07, at 10:12 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:21 PM: On 26 Apr 07, at 8:20 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: [snip] Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based project using JCL 2.x ... I don't think we need to introduce the idea of slots. Allowing multiple versions would suffice. I don't see what the slot concept buys anyone except another term to be familiar with. Well, so how could this work in practice? B-2.2 depends on A-1.0.1 C-1.3 depends on A-2.1 D-1.1 depends on A-1.2 E-1.0 depends on C-2.2 and C-1.3 F-1.0 depends on E-1.0 and A-1.0.1 What do I have to do for E? How does Maven know that A-1.x and A-2.x are both necessary and that it should use A-1.2 and A-2.1? Do I have to add both deps explicitly to E? What does this mean for F? How can I manage in a parent POM the two versions of A in the dependencyManagement? The first question to answer is whether we even want to allow this and if the complexity that would arise from situations like this are worth it versus having N modules where each module has a different set of dependencies. What's easier, and what's necessary. Because there exists a solution in Gentoo for doesn't mean it's necessarily the right one for Maven. And because people have these situations in their builds also doesn't necessarily mean it's something ideal. Not saying it's not worth consideration, just playing the devil's advocate. In your case here above then in dependency management we would also support multiple versions where you could specify defaults, and if you needed to override them in the child you would. This translates into multiple version support all the way down in the core. [snip] If your project cannot define the deps directly, the module approach does not work. See the JCL example. Yes, it works if they are separate modules. But as I said above it is not a technical problem to allow multiple versions of JMock for example. At first blush I just see this causing more problems then viable solutions. Well, therefore I refered Gentoo in my first post. They already have been there and found a solution. Yes, as I said this doesn't necessarily translate into an ideal for Maven. My default position now is the distro tools take their notions and wind them all the way down into the core of the distro which doesn't necessarily jive well with Maven. Again I'm not dismissing slots and multiple versions allowable in the POM. Jason. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:21 PM: > On 26 Apr 07, at 8:20 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: [snip] >> Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two >> major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical >> commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different >> API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x >> series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the >> Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something >> like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based >> project using JCL 2.x ... > > I don't think we need to introduce the idea of slots. Allowing > multiple versions would suffice. I don't see what the slot concept > buys anyone except another term to be familiar with. Well, so how could this work in practice? B-2.2 depends on A-1.0.1 C-1.3 depends on A-2.1 D-1.1 depends on A-1.2 E-1.0 depends on C-2.2 and C-1.3 F-1.0 depends on E-1.0 and A-1.0.1 What do I have to do for E? How does Maven know that A-1.x and A-2.x are both necessary and that it should use A-1.2 and A-2.1? Do I have to add both deps explicitly to E? What does this mean for F? How can I manage in a parent POM the two versions of A in the dependencyManagement? [snip] >> If your project cannot define the deps directly, the module >> approach does not work. See the JCL example. > > Yes, it works if they are separate modules. But as I said > above it is > not a technical problem to allow multiple versions of JMock for > example. At first blush I just see this causing more problems then > viable solutions. Well, therefore I refered Gentoo in my first post. They already have been there and found a solution. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 26 Apr 07, at 8:20 AM 26 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Jason, Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:52 PM: On 26 Apr 07, at 6:05 AM 26 Apr 07, Arik Kfir wrote: IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there should be no issue. I don't think you can force every project to do this, and I think that users would intuitively users expect that two versions of, say, junit that are declared should show up. So what Jorg is asking for is not unreasonable and I'm really just trying to think of the repercussions of allowing multiple versions i.e. do we have any plugins keying off special versions of classes: the surefire plugin for example. I think the JMock example is perfectly valid and is something that could be addressed in 2.1 but here is my concern and generally why we took the strategy of not allowing this to begin with: The classpath order is now derived from the order of the listing of the dependencies. So in a particular project what if one case requires class C1 from version 1.0 of JMock, and another case that requires class C1 from version 2.0 of JMock? How are you going to satisfy those two conditions and in general how are you going to protect against classes that have the same name in different versions of the JAR where both are needed?. When this case arises you are going to need a form of paritioning, yes? Well, Nat *is* a bright guy :) Although both versions share the same root package, they have no overlap in claases itself. It is the perfect case for a "slotted" artifact - both development branches can be used at same time. And they continue development in both. They don't have to be slotted. Maven does not prevent you from using multiple versions on a system, which is what the slotting approach is for. It's only for a project, and it's technically not hard to admit multiple versions into the processing. This is not a technical problem. Because you're going to end up requiring features from the new version which means using the newer classes. If you are going to need some way to say "for this group of tests use this version of JMock" and "for this other set of tests use that version of JMock" then you've gotten yourself into a case that cannot be satisfied easy. If projects could guaranteed that version N and the next major upgrade guaranteed compatibility of the intersection of classes in the different versions and additions were a superset of that then adding both versions would be fine. But this is often not the case and you get into real problems because the general rule for major version number changes is that the API can break which means that a class in 2.0 could be significantly different in API and structure then its equivalent in 1.0. If the project does not play nice, Maven cannot help you. Look at the ASM nightmare. Plain CGLIB 2.x depends on ASM 1.x while popular packages like Hibernate-3 or Groovy use ASM 2.x. Unfortunately both ASM versions are not compatible and either you break the artifacts depending on CGLIB or the other ones. CGLIB solved this by the - nodep artifact that contains the necessary ASM 1.x classes with a different package name, but, alas, this is also quite a hack. However, this mess was caused by the ASM project team itself. I don't think the uber JAR approach works as well as child first loading classloaders so that you can use multiple versions of a library. Much like a webapp where two webapps could easily use different versions of CGLIB. But I think the uber JAR approach where a transitive hull is used to reduce the payload and then mange non- public interfaces is a fine approach. In Ant you might create a separate classpath with different JARs and apply that to a different set of classes. We avoid this by simply saying, this is just too complicated and take your tests, create another module that uses the new version of JMock and be done with it. What is easier: creating a separate module which has this simple rule of allowing only one version of a dependency and using all the same patterns of every other type of Maven module. Or allow multiple versions and then start trying to rig up ways to defend against incompatibilities and partitioning sets of classes for use with a particular dependency? I think just making another module is easier. Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based project using JCL 2.x ... I don't think we need to introduce the idea
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Couldn't you just use shade and/or uber jar to combine into a new one and depend on that? -Original Message- From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:52 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions On 26 Apr 07, at 6:05 AM 26 Apr 07, Arik Kfir wrote: > IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should > include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there > should be > no issue. > I don't think you can force every project to do this, and I think that users would intuitively users expect that two versions of, say, junit that are declared should show up. So what Jorg is asking for is not unreasonable and I'm really just trying to think of the repercussions of allowing multiple versions i.e. do we have any plugins keying off special versions of classes: the surefire plugin for example. I think the JMock example is perfectly valid and is something that could be addressed in 2.1 but here is my concern and generally why we took the strategy of not allowing this to begin with: The classpath order is now derived from the order of the listing of the dependencies. So in a particular project what if one case requires class C1 from version 1.0 of JMock, and another case that requires class C1 from version 2.0 of JMock? How are you going to satisfy those two conditions and in general how are you going to protect against classes that have the same name in different versions of the JAR where both are needed?. When this case arises you are going to need a form of paritioning, yes? Because you're going to end up requiring features from the new version which means using the newer classes. If you are going to need some way to say "for this group of tests use this version of JMock" and "for this other set of tests use that version of JMock" then you've gotten yourself into a case that cannot be satisfied easy. If projects could guaranteed that version N and the next major upgrade guaranteed compatibility of the intersection of classes in the different versions and additions were a superset of that then adding both versions would be fine. But this is often not the case and you get into real problems because the general rule for major version number changes is that the API can break which means that a class in 2.0 could be significantly different in API and structure then its equivalent in 1.0. In Ant you might create a separate classpath with different JARs and apply that to a different set of classes. We avoid this by simply saying, this is just too complicated and take your tests, create another module that uses the new version of JMock and be done with it. What is easier: creating a separate module which has this simple rule of allowing only one version of a dependency and using all the same patterns of every other type of Maven module. Or allow multiple versions and then start trying to rig up ways to defend against incompatibilities and partitioning sets of classes for use with a particular dependency? I think just making another module is easier. Are you sure you can defend against and cope with the two versions of JMock without any problem? Nat is a bright guy, and is probably very careful about changes between versions but lots of project are not and we decided not to allow multiple versions to protect people from less then stringent practices that generally happen in real life. We tried to make the rules for a single module simple, and make it simple to create new one. It's just so much easier for the rest of the tool chain to understand then trying to deal with the innumerable variations that occurs when multiple anything is allowed: multiple versions, multiple source trees, and multiple artifacts per unit of work which is a POM/module in Maven. That's the not so short answer, but the reason why we do what we do. I know what users expect to happen, but try to think of the counter examples where things might go wrong by using multiple versions in the same module. Jason. > I see your point, though - I just don't think it is methodology- > correct to > use different versions of the same project in one place, regardless > of the > saying that "it works", because it just doesn't seem "right" to me... > > anyway - just my 2 cents; I have no real objection for Maven to > support > declaring two dependencies of the same artifact with different > version. > > cheers, > Arik. > > On 4/26/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Grzegorz Slowikowski wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:47 AM: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have >> "hib
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Hi Jason, Jason van Zyl wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:52 PM: > On 26 Apr 07, at 6:05 AM 26 Apr 07, Arik Kfir wrote: > >> IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should >> include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there >> should be no issue. >> > > I don't think you can force every project to do this, and I think > that users would intuitively users expect that two versions of, say, > junit that are declared should show up. So what Jorg is > asking for is > not unreasonable and I'm really just trying to think of the > repercussions of allowing multiple versions i.e. do we have any > plugins keying off special versions of classes: the surefire plugin > for example. I think the JMock example is perfectly valid and is > something that could be addressed in 2.1 but here is my concern and > generally why we took the strategy of not allowing this to begin with: > > The classpath order is now derived from the order of the listing of > the dependencies. So in a particular project what if one case > requires class C1 from version 1.0 of JMock, and another case that > requires class C1 from version 2.0 of JMock? How are you going to > satisfy those two conditions and in general how are you going to > protect against classes that have the same name in different > versions > of the JAR where both are needed?. When this case arises you are > going to need a form of paritioning, yes? Well, Nat *is* a bright guy :) Although both versions share the same root package, they have no overlap in claases itself. It is the perfect case for a "slotted" artifact - both development branches can be used at same time. And they continue development in both. > Because you're > going to end > up requiring features from the new version which means using the > newer classes. If you are going to need some way to say "for this > group of tests use this version of JMock" and "for this other set of > tests use that version of JMock" then you've gotten yourself into a > case that cannot be satisfied easy. > > If projects could guaranteed that version N and the next major > upgrade guaranteed compatibility of the intersection of classes in > the different versions and additions were a superset of that then > adding both versions would be fine. But this is often not the case > and you get into real problems because the general rule for major > version number changes is that the API can break which means that a > class in 2.0 could be significantly different in API and structure > then its equivalent in 1.0. If the project does not play nice, Maven cannot help you. Look at the ASM nightmare. Plain CGLIB 2.x depends on ASM 1.x while popular packages like Hibernate-3 or Groovy use ASM 2.x. Unfortunately both ASM versions are not compatible and either you break the artifacts depending on CGLIB or the other ones. CGLIB solved this by the -nodep artifact that contains the necessary ASM 1.x classes with a different package name, but, alas, this is also quite a hack. However, this mess was caused by the ASM project team itself. > In Ant you might create a separate classpath with different JARs and > apply that to a different set of classes. We avoid this by simply > saying, this is just too complicated and take your tests, create > another module that uses the new version of JMock and be done with it. > > What is easier: creating a separate module which has this > simple rule > of allowing only one version of a dependency and using all the same > patterns of every other type of Maven module. Or allow multiple > versions and then start trying to rig up ways to defend against > incompatibilities and partitioning sets of classes for use with a > particular dependency? I think just making another module is easier. Therefore the slots. The project itself can introduce them, if two major versions can be used at same time. Think about a hypothetical commons-logging 2.0 (it is discussed) that might have a different API. I am quite sure Jakarta folks will ensure that 2.x and 1.x series can be used at the same time - simply because even in the Maven repo itself ~ 2000 artifacts depend on it. Without something like the slots, you will never be able to create a new Maven-based project using JCL 2.x ... > Are you sure you can defend against and cope with the two > versions of > JMock without any problem? Nat is a bright guy, and is probably very > careful about changes between versions but lots of project are not > and we decided not to allow multiple versions to protect people from > less then stringent practices that generally happen in real life. Yep. > We tried to make the rules for a single module simple, and make it > simple to create new one. It's just so much easier for the rest of > the tool chain to understand then trying to deal with the > innumerable > variations that occurs when multiple anything is allowed: multiple > versions, multiple source trees, and multiple artifacts
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 26 Apr 07, at 6:05 AM 26 Apr 07, Arik Kfir wrote: IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there should be no issue. I don't think you can force every project to do this, and I think that users would intuitively users expect that two versions of, say, junit that are declared should show up. So what Jorg is asking for is not unreasonable and I'm really just trying to think of the repercussions of allowing multiple versions i.e. do we have any plugins keying off special versions of classes: the surefire plugin for example. I think the JMock example is perfectly valid and is something that could be addressed in 2.1 but here is my concern and generally why we took the strategy of not allowing this to begin with: The classpath order is now derived from the order of the listing of the dependencies. So in a particular project what if one case requires class C1 from version 1.0 of JMock, and another case that requires class C1 from version 2.0 of JMock? How are you going to satisfy those two conditions and in general how are you going to protect against classes that have the same name in different versions of the JAR where both are needed?. When this case arises you are going to need a form of paritioning, yes? Because you're going to end up requiring features from the new version which means using the newer classes. If you are going to need some way to say "for this group of tests use this version of JMock" and "for this other set of tests use that version of JMock" then you've gotten yourself into a case that cannot be satisfied easy. If projects could guaranteed that version N and the next major upgrade guaranteed compatibility of the intersection of classes in the different versions and additions were a superset of that then adding both versions would be fine. But this is often not the case and you get into real problems because the general rule for major version number changes is that the API can break which means that a class in 2.0 could be significantly different in API and structure then its equivalent in 1.0. In Ant you might create a separate classpath with different JARs and apply that to a different set of classes. We avoid this by simply saying, this is just too complicated and take your tests, create another module that uses the new version of JMock and be done with it. What is easier: creating a separate module which has this simple rule of allowing only one version of a dependency and using all the same patterns of every other type of Maven module. Or allow multiple versions and then start trying to rig up ways to defend against incompatibilities and partitioning sets of classes for use with a particular dependency? I think just making another module is easier. Are you sure you can defend against and cope with the two versions of JMock without any problem? Nat is a bright guy, and is probably very careful about changes between versions but lots of project are not and we decided not to allow multiple versions to protect people from less then stringent practices that generally happen in real life. We tried to make the rules for a single module simple, and make it simple to create new one. It's just so much easier for the rest of the tool chain to understand then trying to deal with the innumerable variations that occurs when multiple anything is allowed: multiple versions, multiple source trees, and multiple artifacts per unit of work which is a POM/module in Maven. That's the not so short answer, but the reason why we do what we do. I know what users expect to happen, but try to think of the counter examples where things might go wrong by using multiple versions in the same module. Jason. I see your point, though - I just don't think it is methodology- correct to use different versions of the same project in one place, regardless of the saying that "it works", because it just doesn't seem "right" to me... anyway - just my 2 cents; I have no real objection for Maven to support declaring two dependencies of the same artifact with different version. cheers, Arik. On 4/26/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Grzegorz Slowikowski wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:47 AM: > Hi > > Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have "hibernate" and > "org.hibernate" > groupIds respectively, so they can be used together (java package > names are different too). > This is IMO the proper way to do this. > > While writing this mail I found: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1500#action_94054 > > which confirms what I have written above. You simply acknowledge that the problem exists! The fact that jMock will now switch groupId form jmock to org.jmock is exactly driven by this limitation. The first question I received from Nat of jMock was: "And what wi
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there should be no issue. I see your point, though - I just don't think it is methodology-correct to use different versions of the same project in one place, regardless of the saying that "it works", because it just doesn't seem "right" to me... anyway - just my 2 cents; I have no real objection for Maven to support declaring two dependencies of the same artifact with different version. cheers, Arik. On 4/26/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Grzegorz Slowikowski wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:47 AM: > Hi > > Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have "hibernate" and > "org.hibernate" > groupIds respectively, so they can be used together (java package > names are different too). > This is IMO the proper way to do this. > > While writing this mail I found: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1500#action_94054 > > which confirms what I have written above. You simply acknowledge that the problem exists! The fact that jMock will now switch groupId form jmock to org.jmock is exactly driven by this limitation. The first question I received from Nat of jMock was: "And what will happoen next time?". And I would rather think about the consequences regarding M2.1 now instead of putting my head into the sand. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Grzegorz Slowikowski wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:47 AM: > Hi > > Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have "hibernate" and > "org.hibernate" > groupIds respectively, so they can be used together (java package > names are different too). > This is IMO the proper way to do this. > > While writing this mail I found: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1500#action_94054 > > which confirms what I have written above. You simply acknowledge that the problem exists! The fact that jMock will now switch groupId form jmock to org.jmock is exactly driven by this limitation. The first question I received from Nat of jMock was: "And what will happoen next time?". And I would rather think about the consequences regarding M2.1 now instead of putting my head into the sand. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Hi Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have "hibernate" and "org.hibernate" groupIds respectively, so they can be used together (java package names are different too). This is IMO the proper way to do this. While writing this mail I found: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1500#action_94054 which confirms what I have written above. Greetings Grzegorz Slowikowski Arik Kfir napisał(a): Doesn't the jmock2 contains the classes of jmock1 as well? On 4/25/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:26 PM: > On 25 Apr 07, at 9:00 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM: >> >>> On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? >>> >>> Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If >>> you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, >>> when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork >>> 1.x then >>> you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the >>> repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be >>> constricted to a certain version range? For example, in >>> selecting the >>> latest version of the 1.x family? >>> >>> I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem >>> trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? >> >> Maven speek: >> >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 1.2.0 >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 2.0.0 >> >> >> >> jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time as jMock 1.x. My >> code uses both. So how can I define the deps? >> > > First I'll ask why you are using both versions in one project and > then I'll answer your question. Becasue I have 1000 of old unit tests with jMock 1.x, I am switching my project to JDK 5 and write my new unit tests with improved DSL and annotation support of jMock 2.x. No need at all to to convert the 1000 old tests (some might be converted over time). This is exaclty why jMock 1.xand jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time. - Jörg BTW: The same problem appears if your deps depend transitively on two development branches of the same artifact, that are classloader compatible (different class names) and might be used at the same time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Arik Kfir wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:15 PM: > Doesn't the jmock2 contains the classes of jmock1 as well? No. They should be used side-by-side. And this is a general problem. No project will change their domain/packages and adjust artifact names, simply because Maven cannot handle the situation. The problem has been delayed, since a lot of projects used the transition from M1 to M2 also to adjust their groupId according their domain, but this does obviously not scale. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Doesn't the jmock2 contains the classes of jmock1 as well? On 4/25/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:26 PM: > On 25 Apr 07, at 9:00 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM: >> >>> On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? >>> >>> Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If >>> you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, >>> when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork >>> 1.x then >>> you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the >>> repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be >>> constricted to a certain version range? For example, in >>> selecting the >>> latest version of the 1.x family? >>> >>> I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem >>> trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? >> >> Maven speek: >> >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 1.2.0 >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 2.0.0 >> >> >> >> jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time as jMock 1.x. My >> code uses both. So how can I define the deps? >> > > First I'll ask why you are using both versions in one project and > then I'll answer your question. Becasue I have 1000 of old unit tests with jMock 1.x, I am switching my project to JDK 5 and write my new unit tests with improved DSL and annotation support of jMock 2.x. No need at all to to convert the 1000 old tests (some might be converted over time). This is exaclty why jMock 1.xand jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time. - Jörg BTW: The same problem appears if your deps depend transitively on two development branches of the same artifact, that are classloader compatible (different class names) and might be used at the same time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:26 PM: > On 25 Apr 07, at 9:00 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM: >> >>> On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? >>> >>> Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If >>> you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, >>> when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork >>> 1.x then >>> you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the >>> repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be >>> constricted to a certain version range? For example, in >>> selecting the >>> latest version of the 1.x family? >>> >>> I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem >>> trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? >> >> Maven speek: >> >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 1.2.0 >> >> >> jmock >> jmock >> 2.0.0 >> >> >> >> jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time as jMock 1.x. My >> code uses both. So how can I define the deps? >> > > First I'll ask why you are using both versions in one project and > then I'll answer your question. Becasue I have 1000 of old unit tests with jMock 1.x, I am switching my project to JDK 5 and write my new unit tests with improved DSL and annotation support of jMock 2.x. No need at all to to convert the 1000 old tests (some might be converted over time). This is exaclty why jMock 1.x and jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time. - Jörg BTW: The same problem appears if your deps depend transitively on two development branches of the same artifact, that are classloader compatible (different class names) and might be used at the same time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 25 Apr 07, at 9:00 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM: On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork 1.x then you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be constricted to a certain version range? For example, in selecting the latest version of the 1.x family? I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? Maven speek: jmock jmock 1.2.0 jmock jmock 2.0.0 jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time as jMock 1.x. My code uses both. So how can I define the deps? First I'll ask why you are using both versions in one project and then I'll answer your question. Jason. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dep to same artifact in different versions
Jason van Zyl wrote on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:41 PM: > On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be >> used in two different versions? This applies to all project that >> release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the >> old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least >> with: >> >> jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x >> webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x >> >> Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if >> "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ >> branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux >> such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two >> different development trees that can be installed at the same time. >> For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) >> artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is >> 0 by default >> >> Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality >> in a future release that I might have been missed? >> > > Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If > you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, > when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork > 1.x then > you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the > repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be > constricted to a certain version range? For example, in > selecting the > latest version of the 1.x family? > > I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem > trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? Maven speek: jmock jmock 1.2.0 jmock jmock 2.0.0 jMock 2.x is designed to be used at the same time as jMock 1.x. My code uses both. So how can I define the deps? - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dep to same artifact in different versions
On 25 Apr 07, at 8:09 AM 25 Apr 07, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/ branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what you're talking about. If you want a specific version of something why would we use a slot, when you can specify the version? If you want to use Webwork 1.x then you specify the version. Many versions sit happily together in the repository. Or are you talking about behavior that should be constricted to a certain version range? For example, in selecting the latest version of the 1.x family? I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe a problem trying to translate Gentoo speak to Maven? Jason. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dep to same artifact in different versions
Hi devs, how will Maven handle the problem of a dependency that should be used in two different versions? This applies to all project that release a new (normally major) version that can be used with the old version at the same time. This is currently possible at least with: jmock 1.x / jmock 2.x webworks 1.x / webworks 2.x Maven supprts currently only two "versions" of sa dep if "groupId:artifactId" is different between those two versions/branches, but this might not be always the case. In Gentoo Linux such a situation is solved by introducing a "slot" indicating two different development trees that can be installed at the same time. For Maven this would mean that the separation between (main) artifacts should switch to "groupId:artifactId:slot", where slot is 0 by default Is there already a proposal or doc for such kind of functionality in a future release that I might have been missed? - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
