incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Move DependencyManagement <scope/>s to child poms?
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:56:09 GMT
Oh.  OK.  Yes, when every submodule includes a dependency it can be 
factored out into the parent dependency in a <dependencies/> section, 
including the root pom if it's being used in every descendant module.  
(Keep the scope in the dependencies section and the version in 
dependencyManagement though if you wish to have it listed in both places.)

Glen

On 07/15/2013 05:35 AM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking in just having junit declared both in <dependencyMgmnt/> and
> <dependencies/> section in jspwiki-builder, so it get's inherited in every
> module (scope could be declared in any of those sections). Same with all
> the dependencies used in all modules, but most probably this will be true
> only for junit.
>
>
> regards,
> juan pablo
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> junit.xml is there now: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**
>> incubator/jspwiki/trunk/pom.**xml?revision=1503057&view=**markup#l194<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/pom.xml?revision=1503057&view=markup#l194>,
>> per your preference (which is again OK with me) to have all dependencies
>> listed there, so please continue doing so with *any* dependency used
>> anywhere.  I still think its scoping should be listed as "test' whereever
>> it's declared, if that's what you're asking, else the reader of the
>> child-level poms has to nervously keep referencing the root pom to make
>> sure it is "test".  Camel[1] at least does it that way.  However, if it
>> makes you comfortable, you can *also* (redundantly) add it to the base
>> pom.xml, which is how CXF does it[2], for both JUnit and EasyMock.  I just
>> want to see the actual scopes declared in the child-level poms and not rely
>> on base poms for that; I don't really care what the default scoping in the
>> base pom is (if you leave nothing there, it's not like we're not declaring
>> a scope but it's just defaulting to compile anyway).  Will that work for
>> you?
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**camel/trunk/parent/pom.xml?**
>> revision=1477920&view=markup#**l1720<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/parent/pom.xml?revision=1477920&view=markup#l1720>,
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**camel/trunk/components/camel-**
>> castor/pom.xml?revision=**1468765&view=markup<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/components/camel-castor/pom.xml?revision=1468765&view=markup>
>>
>> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**cxf/trunk/parent/pom.xml?**
>> revision=1502893&view=markup#**l581<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/cxf/trunk/parent/pom.xml?revision=1502893&view=markup#l581>,
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**cxf/trunk/rt/databinding/jaxb/**
>> pom.xml?view=markup#l83<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/cxf/trunk/rt/databinding/jaxb/pom.xml?view=markup#l83>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/15/2013 02:37 AM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> they're needed for compiling/running SiteGeneratorTest, which updates the
>>> site files:
>>>
>>> * jspwiki-war:classes, which contains o.a.w.Release
>>> * commons-io and commons-lang, to make use of o.a.c.io.FileUtils and
>>> o.a.c.lang.StringUtils respectively
>>> * log4j, used in SiteGeneratorTest, and junit to run the test in this file
>>>
>>> all dependencies are test scoped in this module. Btw, just noticed, could
>>> we push junit down to our jspwiki-builder? Most probably it's going to be
>>> defined in all the modules..
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Incidentally, JP, are any of the dependencies in jspwiki-site/pom.xml
>>>> used?  I don't understand their purpose, as that submodule AFAICT doesn't
>>>> generate or do anything but just sit there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>> On 07/12/2013 04:35 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Hi!
>>>>> I agree with moving scope to submodules. As for keeping dependencyMgmt
>>>>> only
>>>>> for duplicated entries, I'd rather keep them all; I find easier to
>>>>> locate
>>>>> dependencies config if it's centralized, if it's scattered I find more
>>>>> difficult to know what libs are we using at a glance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'd like to start with submodules next week, so dependencies will
>>>>> start to be moved between submodules.
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>
>>>>> apologies on brevity, typos introduced by phone's spellchecker
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>


Mime
View raw message