Re: [m2] Parent POM and dependencies
hi Jim I think I understand what you are saying and I have been in the same boat, though in a different aspect. Here's is what I understand about this, and my feeling is that current support of inheritance and aggregation do not complement each other. Project type pom can be used for two purposes: 1) Parent pom for "Inherited children": Define a base project that all inherited children can refer to. Define all common dependencies, repositories, distributionManagement etc in this parent pom, but do not define its dependency on children. In other words if you look closely from object-orientation perspective, base class cannot be aware of the children or specialized classes. Only exception to this is the dependencyManagement section which tries to glue and control the versions of participating child projects. 2) Parent for "Contained children": Define a pom project that defines multiple module it is supposed to compile/contain. Or if you do not want this whole-aggregates relationship, do not define modules and just define dependency on all "contained children" projects. This way another project could just add this aggregating pom project as dependency and will end up including all its dependencies. Hope my response made some sense, though i am not very satisfied after writing it. - kapil Jim-53 wrote: > > Thanks John, > > In this case I could use some help understanding. In every case, without > exception, when I add a "dependencies" section of a POM file whose > packaging is "pom," not once have I intended that POM files artifact to > be what is dependent on those items. In every case it's the children of > that POM file that I want to "include" those dependencies. > > I cannot even envision a case where a dependency listed in a POM file > whose packaging is POM is actually a dependency on the building of the > POM artifact. > > If possible some clarification would be much appreciated. > > Thanks, > Jim > > John Tolentino wrote: > >> Hi Jim, >> >> All POMs' dependencies needs to be validated regardless of its packaging. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> Jim Carroll wrote: >> >>> >>> It appears that the transitive dependency mechanism is not sensitive >>> to the packaging. This seems odd to me and is causing me an >>> incredible amount of grief. I have a parent pom that defines a >>> dependency. I intend this parent pom to be used almost like an >>> "include." For example: >>> >>> >>> 4.0.0 >>> mycompany.poms >>> parentpom >>> xxx >>> pom >>> >>> >>> >>> mycompany.lib >>> utility >>> xxx >>> >>> >>> >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-m2--Parent-POM-and-dependencies-tf1189144s177.html#a11766341 Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [m2] Parent POM and dependencies
Thanks John, In this case I could use some help understanding. In every case, without exception, when I add a "dependencies" section of a POM file whose packaging is "pom," not once have I intended that POM files artifact to be what is dependent on those items. In every case it's the children of that POM file that I want to "include" those dependencies. I cannot even envision a case where a dependency listed in a POM file whose packaging is POM is actually a dependency on the building of the POM artifact. If possible some clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jim John Tolentino wrote: Hi Jim, All POMs' dependencies needs to be validated regardless of its packaging. Regards, John Jim Carroll wrote: It appears that the transitive dependency mechanism is not sensitive to the packaging. This seems odd to me and is causing me an incredible amount of grief. I have a parent pom that defines a dependency. I intend this parent pom to be used almost like an "include." For example: 4.0.0 mycompany.poms parentpom xxx pom mycompany.lib utility xxx - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [m2] Parent POM and dependencies
Thanks John, In this case I could use some help understanding. In every case, without exception, when I add a "dependencies" section of a POM file whose packaging is "pom," not once have I intended that POM files artifact to be what is dependent on those items. In every case it's the children of that POM file that I want to "include" those dependencies. I cannot even envision a case where a dependency listed in a POM file whose packaging is POM is actually a dependency on the building of the POM artifact. If possible, some clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jim John Tolentino wrote: Hi Jim, All POMs' dependencies needs to be validated regardless of its packaging. Regards, John Jim Carroll wrote: It appears that the transitive dependency mechanism is not sensitive to the packaging. This seems odd to me and is causing me an incredible amount of grief. I have a parent pom that defines a dependency. I intend this parent pom to be used almost like an "include." For example: 4.0.0 mycompany.poms parentpom xxx pom mycompany.lib utility xxx The odd thing is, the installation and/or deployment of the parent pom itself REQUIRES the lib. It's as if the dependency is a dependency on the building of the POM and not a dependency on the building of any OTHER poms that list this pom as a parent. It seems to me that if the packaging of the artifact being built is "pom" then dependencies ought to be ignored. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [m2] Parent POM and dependencies
Hi Jim, All POMs' dependencies needs to be validated regardless of its packaging. Regards, John Jim Carroll wrote: It appears that the transitive dependency mechanism is not sensitive to the packaging. This seems odd to me and is causing me an incredible amount of grief. I have a parent pom that defines a dependency. I intend this parent pom to be used almost like an "include." For example: 4.0.0 mycompany.poms parentpom xxx pom mycompany.lib utility xxx The odd thing is, the installation and/or deployment of the parent pom itself REQUIRES the lib. It's as if the dependency is a dependency on the building of the POM and not a dependency on the building of any OTHER poms that list this pom as a parent. It seems to me that if the packaging of the artifact being built is "pom" then dependencies ought to be ignored. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Jim - 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]
[m2] Parent POM and dependencies
It appears that the transitive dependency mechanism is not sensitive to the packaging. This seems odd to me and is causing me an incredible amount of grief. I have a parent pom that defines a dependency. I intend this parent pom to be used almost like an "include." For example: 4.0.0 mycompany.poms parentpom xxx pom mycompany.lib utility xxx The odd thing is, the installation and/or deployment of the parent pom itself REQUIRES the lib. It's as if the dependency is a dependency on the building of the POM and not a dependency on the building of any OTHER poms that list this pom as a parent. It seems to me that if the packaging of the artifact being built is "pom" then dependencies ought to be ignored. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
