commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <>
Subject Re: [proxy] Cutting a release...
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:12:21 GMT
Here's a page with more details:

Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Optional means that you can use the product without these dependencies 
> present. Take commons-logging as an example. It has optional 
> dependencies on log4j and the other logging implementations. In the real 
> world though it will only use one of these. So they are optional.
> Provided means that that dependency will be provided by the target 
> environment. A good example of this is the servlet-api, which will be 
> provided by the servlet container.
> James Carman wrote:
>> The dependencies are truly optional.  I marked them as provided so
>> that they wouldn't get picked up transitively (as you stated) by
>> client projects.  If they want to use the pieces of commons-proxy that
>> need those extra libs, then they can explicitly add them to their POM.
>>  So, does that mean I should be using optional rather than provided?
>> On 9/28/07, Ben Speakmon <> wrote:
>>> Using <scope>provided</scope> doesn't tell maven to ignore the 
>>> dependency,
>>> it just means that it's expected that the user will install it into his
>>> local repository himself or that it will be on the same classloader 
>>> as the
>>> application when it's running. maven will still complain if it can't 
>>> find
>>> it.
>>> Optional dependencies are available from the repository, but not 
>>> downloaded
>>> unless specifically requested in the POM.
>>> Projects with optional dependencies where client code doesn't call 
>>> them are
>>> supposed to not break when the optionals are missing. Several projects
>>> happily violate this rule, but I think we should hold ourselves to a 
>>> higher
>>> standard :)
>>> On 9/28/07, Joerg Hohwiller <> wrote:
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> James Carman wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>> It's been a while since Commons Proxy has had any attention, but I
>>>>> have received two emails in the past two days about it.  So, I would
>>>>> like to cut a 1.0 release for it.
>>>> A 1.0 would be excellent. I am also still hoping this project will come
>>>> out of
>>>> sandbox. The problem seems to be that the apache foundation started to
>>>> only put projects out on the official places if there is a "healty
>>>> community".
>>>> However commons-proxy is a lib with a tight focus and already does 
>>>> what is
>>>> needs
>>>> to do. There are no great new features to discuss.
>>>> In my opinion we should bring out a 1.0 that is well tested
>>>> and then I personally do NOT see why it should remain in sandbox.
>>>> Can someone give a reason against?
>>>> Should otherwise the project start to add various of other utilities
>>>> into commons-proxy only in order that the community grows, bugs are 
>>>> made
>>>> and
>>>> fixed, etc.?
>>>> If I look at maven2 -what is an excellent tool- and the
>>>> dependency-management
>>>> it introduces, then I see that if I depend on axis2, I also depend on
>>>> commons-fileupload, commons-httpclient and on commons-logging and
>>>> therefore on
>>>> avalon-framework, junit, logkit, etc. etc. So my client needs JUnit or
>>>> avalon to
>>>> talk SOAP?
>>>> Maven2 is right with the way it goes. But projects have to focus 
>>>> more on
>>>> specific issues. This is exactly what commons-proxy does.
>>>> BTW: I have seen that commons-proxy is declaring its dependencies 
>>>> with the
>>>> scope
>>>> "provided" what prevents from the problem noted above with the 
>>>> transitive
>>>> dependencies. Maybe you should have a chat with the maven guyz if it
>>>> should be
>>>> <optional>true</optional> instead. Do you know the difference?
I can 
>>>> not
>>>> remember right now...
>>>>> I know I need to do a little work,
>>>>> since the site is a bit out-dated (the SVN links are incorrect) from
>>>>> the TLP move.  Were there any more objections to anything fundamental
>>>>> with Proxy?  I believe my last release candidate failed because of
>>>>> some signature problems or something.  I can't remember.
>>>>> James
>>>> Regards
>>>>   Jörg
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
>>>> 4JVYZ352nRGIbO4a27q9u/w=
>>>> =lB27
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

Dennis Lundberg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message