geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Car plugin is fighting with maven too much
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:18:28 GMT
I'm not completely aware of what the car plugin do, but I think this is
pretty close to what we have done for servicemix.
I think we should be able to get back transitive dependencies on jars,
by rebuilding the full dependency graph, and excluding artifacts that
are already included by referenced cars.  Let me explain:

If the following is the dependency graph (we are trying to build carA)
  - carA
     - jarB
         -jarC
     - jarD
     - carE
        - jarC
it is possible to load this full graph and prune it to obtain a list of *real*
dependencies: jarB, jarD, carE.  jarC would be removed, because it already
contains jarC.  To do this, we rely only on the poms of the dependencies.
We have already done that in servicemix maven plugin, so there's no reason
it could not be done for Geronimo ;)

I'm not sure about the provided scope.  Actually, the servicemix plugin handle
this scope the same way as the car plugin, but the main difference is
that we don't
have the need of deployers, so things are easier.

On 12/14/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ever since we got close to having an m2 build we've been having
> problems with the car plugin overloading the maven scopes to mean
> something in geronimo.  This has caused endless problems, the latest
> of which is that in order to be able to use the car plugin outside
> geronimo, you have to have built geronimo on that machine so all the
> geronimo bits you need are sure to be there.  In more detail this is
> caused by the use of the provided scope to mean "don't stick this
> dependency in the environment".  So, if you mark a builder car as
> provided so it won't get stuck in the environment, maven won't
> download all the bits it needs to run.
>
> This is all caused by our attempt to build the environment plan
> element from the pom.  The main reason I wanted to do that was to be
> sure that if you mentioned something in the environment, maven would
> make sure it was available.  So, maybe it's time to take a more
> direct approach:
>
> How about changing the plugin so it doesn't generate the environment
> element, but instead verifies that all the environment dependencies
> are mentioned in the pom?  Among other things this will give easier
> control over which versions are included in the environment element.
>
> The other possible solutions to this problem I have thought of are:
>
> -- get maven to have an extensible scope system or allow dependency
> annotations like you could do in maven 1.  I think there's no chance
> of this happening before geronimo 3, but I could be wrong.
>
> -- copy the environment dependencies into the car plugin
> configuration.  I think this would end up being harder to deal with
> than validating the environment against the pom.
>
> -- write a maven project that just has dependencies on all geronimo
> artifacts included in any geronimo assembly, so you can build it and
> all the bits will be around for the car plugin to use.
>
>
> Thanks to gnodet for pointing out this problem and discussing
> possible solutions.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Mime
View raw message