commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: sanctioning commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist"
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 14:46:15 GMT
Hi Ralph and co,

The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I
remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However,
I am not aware of any progress on the issue.

Anyway, my request involves allowing commons-logging v99 to be
published on ibiblio. This needs to be done once.

Users who wish to exclude commons-logging would be doing so by
explicitly including version 99 in their pom.xml file. It would be
discouraged in red and bold print against declaring version 99 in
libraries. Only end users, or application builders, would be "allowed"
to declare version 99.

While there is some small danger in some component declaring version
99 in their pom.xml and this preventing the inclusion of
commons-logging proper, any library developer with half-a-brain would
refrain from doing that.

Thus, the idea is to offer some additional comfort for those users
wishing to exclude commons-logging. Admittedly, there is no gain for
the Apache Commons community.

Thank you for taking my request into consideration.



Ralph Goers wrote:
> I would suggest bringing this up on the Maven dev list. I could see 
> adding this as a feature to 3.0 to allow artifacts to be "redirected" to 
> a replacement artifact.
> 
> On May 14, 2009, at 2:23 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> 
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A large number of Maven projects declare commons-logging as a
>> dependency. Thus, if a developer wishes to use jcl-over-slf4j instead
>> of commons-logging, he or she would need to declare a commons-logging
>> exclusion in all of his/her dependencies which transitively depend on
>> commons-logging. This can be an error prone process. To alleviate the
>> pain, Erik van Oosten has developed a clever hack around this problem.
>>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/2kds3v for details.
>>
>> The idea is to publish empty artifacts which supposedly fulfill
>> dependencies for commons-logging without actually providing any
>> classes (hence the empty artifacts).
>>
>> This approach works fine except that it requires the declaration of a
>> new repository in the project's pom.xml file. Moreover, the durability
>> of this repository is also questionable.
>>
>> Would the Apache Commons community, out of courtesy to developers,
>> consent to commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist" to be
>> published in the main maven repository?
>>
>> I understand that the Apache Commons has nothing to gain by
>> sanctioning work done elsewhere. However, since the ASF is a
>> non-profit organization I thought that my request might have a small
>> chance of being accepted.
>>
>> Thank you for your response,
>>
>> -- 
>> Ceki Gülcü
>> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework 
>> for Java.
>> http://logback.qos.ch
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 

-- 
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message