accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "Provided" dependencies
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:06:44 GMT
+1 1.5.0 was a big pain in the butt with the addition of the provided 
scope when moving from 1.4. Or was it 1.3 to 1.4? Whichever it was, it 
was annoying :)

On 11/7/13, 5:05 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> Dropping provided sounds good.    Seems like it would make users poms
> simpler.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> What's the latest opinion whether things should be marked "provided" in
>> the pom?
>> I've changed my mind on this a few times, myself, so I'm curious what
>> others think.
>>
>> The provided scope means that it will not propagate as a transitive
>> dependency. Other than that, it doesn't do much... though we can
>> control packaging based on provided or not.
>>
>> I'm not sure this gets us much, and it's inconvenient for users. We
>> can control packaging in other ways (like being more explicit and
>> carefully considering which dependencies we include in an RPM or
>> tarball, for instance).
>>
>> If we drop its declaration, what this means, is that if users want to
>> build with Accumulo as a dependency, but against a different version
>> of Hadoop than what we declare in our POM, they'll have to explicitly
>> <exclude> the hadoop dependencies, and redeclare them, or they will
>> have to use their <dependencyManagement> section to force a particular
>> dependency of hadoop.
>>
>> The advantage to users, though, if we drop this, is that they won't
>> have to constantly re-declare transitive dependencies to get their
>> projects to build/test/run.
>>
>> See http://s.apache.org/maven-dependency-scopes
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>

Mime
View raw message