directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John E. Conlon" <>
Subject Re: ApacheDS Maven POM and inherited dependencies
Date Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:20:22 GMT
On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 23:39 +0200, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> John E. Conlon a écrit :
> <snip/>
> >Inside the trunks/apacheds/pom.xml one dependency is specified.
> > <dependency>
> >      <groupId></groupId>
> >      <artifactId>shared-ldap</artifactId>
> >      <version>0.9.6-SNAPSHOT</version>
> ></dependency>
> >
> >And this dependency and its transitive dependencies cascade down the
> >inheritance chain adversely effecting children that don't need shared-
> >ldap (and its transitives) - like the osgi projects. 
> >
> >This kind of dependency is not a good thing to have in a ancestor pom
> >unless all its descendants need it
> >
> All its descendants need it, atm :) (Well, not exactly true, because we 
> have many protocol-xxx projects that don't need this jar)
and the OSGi of course ;-)

> >, and that is not the case for
> >apacheds. 
> >
> Well, may be the problem is not the apacheds sub-project itslef, but the 
> fact that sub-sub projects like protocolas are into apacheds sub-project ?
I think your on to something here. 

Reexamining the OSGi directory one can see there are mina and shared
encapsulating projects in it which demonstrates one more reason that
OSGi is not a happy child of apacheds and should be moved. So instead of
removing the dep in apacheds pom lets move the OSGi. Where??

I think OSGi needs to move to trunks and become a peer project of
apacheds and built by the root pom.xml. Here is what it would look like
after the change:

    <module>osgi</module> <!--new-->

> >So that dep needs to be removed from the
> >trunks/apacheds/pom.xml and placed only in the descendant poms that
> >really need to use it. Once done my patches will not be needed and we
> >will still keep a nice inheritance chain up to the root pom.xml.
> >  
> >
> hmmm. That would be a little but ennoying. almost of apacheds descendant 
> need this dependence. Having it spreaded to 10 to 15 subprojetcs will 
> drive us directly to build problems if we updgrade shared-ldap jar. But 
> this is something we can do.
Moving it like you suggested and I described would not effect these
projects. They would'nt care.


View raw message