ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gilles Scokart" <>
Subject RE: "Buy I want to use *my* version!"
Date Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:24:21 GMT
Mmm, I think I missed something.

What is wrong in my thinking:
 1. When C is resolved, the share repository must be accessed to find B vX,
and using a cache is not an issue.
 2. If B vX depends on C vY, ivy will ask for C vY to the local resolver,
and it will return nothing, so the share resolver will be used (if nothing
is in the cache) 

Note also that the notion of latest is not applicable in that case.  Indeed,
the local version can be older than the version on the share (for example
when you are using a continuous build).


-----Original Message-----
From: Xavier Hanin [] 
Sent: vendredi 2 février 2007 9:01
Subject: Re: "Buy I want to use *my* version!"

I think IVY-399 could help solve the problem, because it's really related to
the cache. But note that even without IVY-399 there's a solution with a
custom DependencyResolver (and not a repository), because the problem lies
in the resolvers and their use of the cache.

When Ivy resolves the module A dependencies, it finds that it depends on
latest version of B. Then it finds B vX as the latest version of B, which
depends on C vY (and not on the latest one, and here is the problem). Then
Ivy ask the resolver to resolve C vY, the resolver see that there is a C vY
in the cache, and returns it, without checking any repository. So if we were
able to disable cache use for the dependency resolver used as a local one,
we could return what is in the local repository, whatever the revision asked
is. This is IVY-399 solution. The current solution is to hard code a
resolver with no cache management, and this will have the same effect and I
think that's what you're thinking about John.

- Xavier

On 2/2/07, Gilles Scokart <> wrote:
> I fear IVY-399 will not solve the problem.  If B is not in the local
> repository, it will still depend on the old C whatever any caching.
> I also have similar issue, but I didn't yet manage to solve it.
> I solved a closed problem by using different version names in local
> repository and in the share repository in such a way that the local
> artefacts get the priority (even if they are older than the one on the
> share
> repository).  I did that by placing in the configuration file:
> <latest-strategies>
>         <latest-revision name="local-revision">
>                 <specialMeaning name="build" value="-1"/>
>                 <specialMeaning name="dev" value="1"/>
>                 <!-- Dev received the priority -->
>         </latest-revision>
> </latest-strategies>
> But unfortunately it only solves the case where C is a direct dependency
> of
> A.
> Gilles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Crahen []
> Sent: vrijdag 2 februari 2007 3:14
> To:
> Subject: Re: "Buy I want to use *my* version!"
> I have exactly the same use case. The reason that the resolver chains
> always
> break down has to do with how Ivy's cache is implemented. The change
> suggested here, would allow
> this to be corrected. Once this is done, all you would need to do to use
> your versions is resolver against a resolver chain with your local
> repository at the head.
> I have not found any simple work around with the current revision of ivy
> On 2/1/07, John Williams <> wrote:
> >
> > One thing I've been hearing from my coworkers is that when they have a
> > locally-published module, they always want to use the local version
> > regardless of versions exist in other repositories.  I've tried
> > various strategies like setting the default resolver to stop after the
> > first match and forcing local modules have high revision numbers, but
> > there seems to be no reliable way to *just* use the local version of a
> > module.
> >
> > The problem always seems to manifest itself like this: I'm working on
> > a module A, which depends on module B, and module B depends on module
> > C, but A does not depend directly on C.  I have a local version of A
> > (because I'm working on it), but I'm using shared versions of B and C.
> > Now suppose I discover that a bug in C is causing A to break, so I
> > make a bug fix and C and publish it.  Now I want to see if my bug fix
> > in C also fixed A, so I resolve in A and I get.....the old version of
> > C!  This happens because A only depends on C through B, so the
> > resolver will only consider the version of C that B depends on.
> >
> > There are two workarounds to this situation--either make A depend
> > directly on C, or publish a new version of B for the sole purpose of
> > updating the version of C it depends on.  Unfortunately when my
> > coworkers get into this situation, they just want their code to work
> > without having to untangle any weird Ivy voodoo.
> >
> > I have an idea for a fix but I don't know if it would work.  What if
> > there was a special file system repository (resolver? both?) type
> > would always choose a version when one is available? So in my
> > scenario, this new resolver would pick my fixed version of C even
> > though it doesn't match the revision number that B wants.  Would that
> > even work?
> >
> > --jw
> >
> --
> - Eric

View raw message