Hi Stefan,

Please read pg 57 & 58 of Better Builds with Maven (3.6 Resolving
dependency conflicts and using version ranges).

Essentially, you have one of two options.

You can exclude it from Wicket.

For example 

    <dependencies>
      <dependency>
          <groupId>Wicket</groupId>
          <artifactId>Wicket</artifactId>
          <version>2.0</version>
          <exclusions>
             <exclusion>
                <groupId>commons-collections</groupId>
                <artifactId>commons-collections</artifactId>
             </exclusion>
          </exclusions>
      </dependency>
    </dependencies>


The drawback in the above approach is that, if you include a new jar
file that is dependent on commons-collections 3.0 your build will break.


The example below will work for all current and future release.

      <dependency>
         <groupId>commons-collections</groupId>
         <artifactId>commons-collections</artifactId>
         <version>[3.2,)</version>
      </dependency>

It is preferable to include the above dependency in your parent POM to
ensure that this is reflected in all your projects.

Thanks
Lakshman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Arentz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2006 10:31 PM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Two dependencies depending on different versions of
commons-collections
> 
> I have two dependencies in my project that both depend on different
> versions of commons-collections.
> 
> OpenJPA -> commons-collections 3.2
> Wicket 2.0 -> commons-collections 2.1
> 
> Wicket seems to 'win' and commons-collections 2.1 is included.
> Unfortunately this does not work for OpenJPA so I had to add a
> dependency to commons-collections 3.1 to my project. That seemed to
> override the choice.
> 
> Is there a better way to do this? If I know that commons-collections
> always guarantees backward compatibility, is it possible to change the
> dependency in Wicket to 'commons collections 2.1 or higher' ?
> 
> Can Maven2 do that and will that help resolving the right version in
this case?
> 
>  S.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to