accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: "Provided" dependencies
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:05:10 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message