geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Houghton <rhough...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Questions about Poms and Publishing
Date Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:38:22 GMT
Thanks John.

Do you foresee the native Gradle DSL
https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/managing_transitive_dependencies.html
as an *eventual* replacement for the dependency-management-plugin you
reference?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:09 AM John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io> wrote:

> If you'd like Maven dependencyManagement like behavior in Gradle, then you
> should have a look at...
>
> https://github.com/spring-gradle-plugins/dependency-management-plugin
>
> -j
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Bill Burcham <bburcham@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > @Patrick Rhomberg <prhomberg@pivotal.io> I've never seen the
> > dependencyManagement element survive in a published POM before.
> >
> > Since it sounds like you're asserting that you saw that element in a
> > published POM (published by Gradle), I decided to verify that. I ran this
> > from the Geode develop branch just now:
> >
> > ./gradlew build publishMavenPublicationToMavenLocal -x javadoc
> > -Dskip.tests=true
> >
> > When I look
> > at ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/geode/geode-core/1.9.0-
> > SNAPSHOT/geode-core-1.9.0-SNAPSHOT.pom
> > I see no dependencyManagement section.
> >
> > The absence of that element comports with my experience. My experience w/
> > the dependencyManagement element is that it is used when you're using
> Maven
> > to manage your build. It is wonderful for DRYing up what would otherwise
> be
> > unmanageable version information spread among lots of pom.xml (source)
> > file.
> >
> > "dependency constraints" in Gradle sounds like it'd be a big step forward
> > for similar reasons. I'd assume that "dependency constraints" don't
> result
> > in a dependencyManagement element in any published POM file though.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 10:00 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The dependency management element applies dependency constraints to
> first
> > > class dependencies and transitive dependencies. For example in
> dependency
> > > management of this say A:1 and B:2 it does not mean your module will
> > > necessarily depend on A:1 and B:2 but if the module or transitive
> module
> > > does that the versions will be nudged to match these constraints. So
> then
> > > if you module you have a dependency section that includes A it will
> > become
> > > A:1 and if A:1 depends on B:1 then B:1 will be nudged to B:2.
> > >
> > > -Jake
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I want reproducible builds.  If dependency locking [1] works I would
> be
> > > open to dynamic versions [2].
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/dependency_locking.html
> > > > [2]
> > > https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/declaring_
> > dependencies.html#sub:declaring_dependency_with_dynamic_version
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:02 PM, Patrick Rhomberg <prhomberg@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> My current question surrounds the structure of POMs in specifying
> > > version
> > > >> information.  Gradle supports `dependency constraints` to unify
> > library
> > > >> versioning.  This seems to me to be a clean, concise alternative to
> > our
> > > >> current approach of cluttering the project property space with
> > > >> project.'library.version', with mixed adherence throughout our build
> > > files.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -John
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message