maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Making (sisu-)guice a provided scope dependency of Sisu?
Date Tue, 03 Sep 2013 03:49:42 GMT
On 23 August 2013 17:07, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I believe Stuart just want to ease life of users consuming maven artifatcs
>> but prefer google guice rather than a fork ( preventing them having to
>> write too many exclusions xml elements and avoid having twice guice as a
>> dependency).
>> I think it's a good idea and doesn't prevent us using the version we prefer.
>>
>> What is the problem for you exactly with such change?
>>
>
> Ultimately I don't think it's useful. No user cares what version of Guice is used, they
care that the distribution works.
>

I said "users consuming maven artifatcs" which is different from final
Apache Maven users.

> If you have a philosophical objection to using a fork then I think a more practical use
of time is to help Stuart remove any of the differences between our fork and stock Guice.
I believe Stuart has done everything he can to remove those differences. What differences
remain are those he feels are of benefit to Maven.
>
> I'm doing the core releases right now and I'm not going to put stock Guice in the distribution,
I'm going to use sisu-guice so I think it's fine the way it is.
>

Did I talk about changing something in the Apache Maven distribution?
I believe no.

My use case is only for users (read devs) who consume Apache Maven
artifacts and already use non forked Guice and prefer this one.

So the Stuart proposition sounds good.



>> --
>> Olivier
>> On Aug 23, 2013 2:26 PM, "Jason van Zyl" <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Stuart McCulloch <mcculls@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As one of the main downstream users of Sisu would you prefer it to
>>> declare
>>>> a provided scope dependency to (sisu-)guice rather than the current
>>> compile
>>>> scope dependency?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>>> Making it provided should make it easier to swap in alternative versions
>>>> while still documenting the dependency - and avoid lots of tedious
>>>> exclusions. The only downside I can see is that downstream users like the
>>>> Maven runtime would then need to explicitly remember to add the
>>>> (sisu-)guice dependency in their final application artifact/assembly (and
>>>> potentially in some tests) as it would no longer be transitively
>>> included.
>>>> (though that might be a good thing documentation-wise)
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> I think you understand what the requirements are, and we need the
>>> additional changes for it all to work well. I don't think it's very
>>> practical to accommodate variants when we can't really use stock Guice.
>>> When all the patches are in, which you do your best to integrate, then we
>>> can switch. As the one doing the core releases right now I don't see any
>>> benefit of swapping in alternate versions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Script timed out
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Script timed out
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message