Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 12748 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2009 06:54:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2009 06:54:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 97411 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2009 06:54:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 97270 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2009 06:53:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 97262 invoked by uid 99); 10 Dec 2009 06:53:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:53:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jgawor@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.218] (HELO mail-bw0-f218.google.com) (209.85.218.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:53:56 +0000 Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so5928384bwz.35 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:53:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L61rN9S2VOTIe9JQNldHTZxd7UULZerXp3piBdPiaHY=; b=FUueBx29XGjgRx1e1YFKZkNjBVB3SEEzO2KLdhl9lca5QGNDLHIISNTHK30RqlM6gU D9DILAOC+R1r4dRTV8K9NDrXJMGbmHcqtAsTQb8GeGQVhgv0ThXIH8b27YK3HesiLzWL H9vdGb6//c9ebEtP370q3bIRIO8N7O7GEM0Ks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PnMihDOS3Etye1mintQeXP5KVFwGCL8hEs4iGPSO2pUrwLWlaoNpYLVNTGuy+XXWCL NneUmijdW0PdNo0M+czDEz4cXaLr/NjxEGbPyYNBBnStnk3pUKwtd3sJHK/eFTFGO3V2 8JNHWTSbdy2aAetfBkdb+8iUbEt5D2mlvd91o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.65 with SMTP id u1mr1523428bkb.176.1260428014805; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:53:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <45f744e40912092203v586e9a15h9a8c6b3afe25efb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <45f744e40912091851n12d6e4c5lc7639213a8914314@mail.gmail.com> <3F19EB5F-8365-40E2-9318-D0E7F200ADA4@yahoo.com> <45f744e40912092203v586e9a15h9a8c6b3afe25efb0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:53:34 -0500 Message-ID: <5eb405c70912092253w270df65ey9694f705551c4101@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Move dependencyManagment segment in framework/pom.xml to the root pom.xml From: Jarek Gawor To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm +1 for moving some shared dependencies into root pom. If some dependency is not shared then it can live in some plugin's root pom. I do have problems with import imports or at least with how maven handles them. During a build, Maven might initially download/use a snapshot of that imported pom with one set of dependencies but later build the same pom with another set of dependencies. So I never know which dependencies are really used at build time with scope imports. Because of that I've been trying to avoid import imports and wanted to make sure we don't over abuse them. Jarek On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Ivan wrote: > Thanks for the clarification for the two solutions, David. > But I do not think that it is better to move all the dependencies out fro= m > the root pom.xml file. It makes sense that define them in the plugin's po= m > file for Tomcat or Jetty. But for those tool packages, like xmlbeans, > xmlresovle, etc, I still think it is better to put them in the root pom > file. For example, it will make it strange to import pluginA just for usi= ng > a xmlbean package, although it would not a problem from technical side. > Any comments ? > > 2009/12/10 David Jencks >> >> On Dec 9, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Ivan wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> =A0 =A0I found some third-party bundle defintions are in the >>> framework/pom.xml, Is there any reason to keep them there ? If not, I w= ould >>> suggest to move them to the root pom.xml file, so that all the plugins = could >>> refer to them. >> >> To me this is a difficult question. =A0There are two plausible alternati= ves: >> >> 1. move all dependency management for the entire project to the root pom= . >> >> 2. move all dependency management to either framework root pom or the >> plugins root pom that introduces them, and use the import= in >> dependency management for other plugins that need the dependency to impo= rt >> the pom that sets up the dependencyManagement.. >> >> 2 depends on the very recent import scope feature, we could not have don= e >> it for any 2.1 or earlier releases. >> >> Arguments can definitely be made on both sides of this discussion. =A0At= the >> moment my thinking is that (1) promotes a monolithic project that is >> difficult to split into independent modules that are assembled, and that= (2) >> promotes more modularity at the possible cost of making dependency track= ing >> slightly harder. =A0So, over the last few months I've been moving toward= s (2), >> putting dependency management for e.g. the imported jetty jars in the je= tty8 >> root pom. >> >> So, I'm in favor of gradually moving all the dependency management out o= f >> the root pom. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >>> =A0 =A0Thanks ! >>> -- >>> Ivan >> > > > > -- > Ivan >