>
> Think some sort of "artifact-transformer" mechanism in Maven would be
> really cool ("Map the following groupId to otherGroupId").There is some discussion around this feature for a future POM model. Any year now. :-) /Anders > But I guess something like that would fit into the same drawer as the > which to hace a "configuration-check" mechanism that allows a plugin to > validate the configuration used (Would really like to implement some > validator and "best-practice" validator component guiding users on how to > use the plugin) > > Chris > > > ________________________________________ > Von: anders.g.ham...@gmail.com <anders.g.ham...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von > Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 11:37 > An: Maven Users List > Betreff: Re: Painless way to update a frameworks group id? > > I don't think that will work. The "bad" deps are still used in compile time > and only not used in runtime. > > The correct solution (until there are new releases that don't pull in the > "bad" transitive deps) is to excluded them. And that probably can't be > automated in any other way than providing means to detect them (the > enforcer rule). > > What you could do is try this and release a beta or something and see what > sort of problems people run into. Changing coordinates is always a problem. > > My two cents, > /Anders > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Christofer Dutz < > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > wrote: > > > What do you think about this Option? > > > > I created a tool that mavenizes a non-maven Flex SDK and genereates all > > sorts of maven artifacts ... one artifact that is generated is a Special > > pom that contains only a dependency Management section that can be used > to > > automatically configure the Versions of dependencies in the Flex SDK ... > I > > could automatically generate dependency manangement entries for the old > > Group id that set the dependencies to "provided". So as soon as someone > > imports that pom containing the dependencyManagement entries for the good > > artifacts, the "exclude" entries are automatically in place. > > > > Chris > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > Von: anders.g.ham...@gmail.com <anders.g.ham...@gmail.com> im Auftrag > von > > Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 11:07 > > An: Maven Users List > > Betreff: Re: Painless way to update a frameworks group id? > > > > AFAIK there is not painless way to solve this. > > > > What you could add to the docs is instructions on how to use an enforcer > > rule to ensure that no "bad" libs are pulled in by accident (if the miss > > some exclusion). Use the banned deps [1] rule. > > > > /Anders > > > > [1] > > http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/bannedDependencies.html > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Christofer Dutz > > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am the current maintainer of the Flexmojos Maven Plugin and > contributor > > > to the Apache Flex Project. > > > > > > Currently I am working on a new Version of Flexmojos which is able to > > work > > > with Flex SDKs that have a groupId of org.apache.flex instead of the > old > > > com.adobe.flex. While building applications with the new groupId was no > > big > > > Problem, we are now facing a Problem, that I don't quite know how to > > > elegantly solve it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming I am building a Project and I switched the groupId of the Flex > > > Framework to "org.apache.flex". As Long as I am building all artifacts > in > > > the Project this is fine. But as soon as I am using a Flex library that > > was > > > built for com.apache.flex Maven correctly adds that artifacts > > dependencies > > > to the build. Unfortunately this way I have several artifacts in my > build > > > twice ... once with com.adobe.flex and once with org.apache.flex > groupId. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I was suggesting to manually exclude Framework artifacts when using > > an > > > external lib, but I would like to automate this. Therefore I suggested > to > > > add all the org.apache.flex artifacts as com.adobe.flex artifacts, but > to > > > set the scope on These to "provided". But it still sort of doesn't feel > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any suggestions? Would be really happy to sort this out and make it > less > > > painfull for my users. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >
