geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <dsundst...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: Lets make recursive dependencies obvious rather than hidden. [was Re: Proposal to remove processing of geronimo-service.xml files in dependencies]
Date Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:04:48 GMT
I dislike this because it requires intimate knowledge of the dependency 
archive.  For example, if you are using a module and it decides to use 
nested dependencies then you will have to modify all plans.

As we have seen with war archives, users just want a single file that 
Just Works (sm).

-dain

On Dec 27, 2004, at 12:08 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I think I am completely failing to communicate my concern.  Perhaps 
> the problem is that the subject header is now completely misleading.
>
> I agree 100% that the external dependency list, now called 
> geronimo-service.xml, is a good idea and should be kept under some 
> name and syntax, and that we should spiff up the maven stuff so it 
> gets its dependency versions set during the build.  I don't care what 
> we name it.
>
> What I would like is that by looking at the top level plan containing 
> gbean instance definitions, you can easily see whether a dependency is 
> a plain jar or if it contains more information such as a 
> geronimo-service.xml.  I suggested some syntax for this:
>
> <dependency>
>   <uri>foo/jars/foo-1.0.jar</uri>
>   <pom>foo/poms/geronimo-service.xml</pom>
> </dependency>
>
> for external dependency lists or
>
> <dependency>
>   <uri>foo/jars/foo-1.0.jar</uri>
>   <embedded-pom/>
> </dependency>
>
> Then, including just
>
> <dependency>
>   <uri>foo/jars/foo-1.0.jar</uri>
> </dependency>
> would result in an embedded dependency list being ignored.
>
> Obviously, pom is the wrong name, but I haven't figured out a better 
> one.
>
> thanks
> david jencks


Mime
View raw message