maven-m2-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: dependencies in reactorized builds
Date Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:48:25 GMT
Michal,

It's important that we stop getting sidetracked as you say, so I'm going 
to start a new thread about this because its completely different to 
what was originally being discussed. I think you've completely 
misunderstood what I'm getting at, which is why I asked for time to 
gather my thoughts about it instead of answering a bunch of one-offs 
that trivialise the topic.

I'll put together my thoughts on the way in, so they'll be posted in a 
couple of hours. I'll deal with:
- the 2 use cases for a reactor
- versioning models in inheritence and how m2 can support working with 
both (this will address your single concern below)
- subversions and scm, and how they affect the layout of a project and 
inheritence.

Cheers,
Brett

Maczka Michal wrote:

>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jason@maven.org]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 12:50 AM
>>To: Maven 2 Developers List
>>Subject: RE: dependencies in reactorized builds
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 09:59 +0100, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Hi Michal,
>>>
>>>We have a big project at work (some 100+ projects with 60+ 
>>>      
>>>
>>developers as of
>>    
>>
>>>now). This is all a single application that goes in the 
>>>      
>>>
>>same EAR (we could
>>    
>>
>>>have some smaller EARs but that wouldn't change the pb).
>>>
>>>We need to ensure all those projects share the same version 
>>>      
>>>
>>of dependency
>>    
>>
>>>libraries they use (log4j, hibernate, commons-*, etc). ATM 
>>>      
>>>
>>we're using
>>    
>>
>>>entity include but that's not a very nice solution.
>>>
>>>I don't see what's the relationship with releasing all at 
>>>      
>>>
>>once. We simply
>>    
>>
>>>want to be sure all the projects are using the same external library
>>>versions.
>>>      
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>That's what I've always done and it does ensure a greater level of
>>integrity in your deployed applications. Only in extremely rare cases
>>would I, myself, settle for different versions of an artifact within a
>>deployment. You're just asking for trouble if you do.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Hey Jason!
>
>I have an impression that we are speaking about completely different things.
>We haven't been at all speaking about "different versions of an artifact
>within a deployment."
>
>Probably it wasn't clear: 
>I simply made an quick analysis of Dan's XFIRE case which is:
>
>"Maybe a good example would be XFire. I release all the xfire artifacts 
>at once (core, java binding, xmlbeans binding, plexus, loom, spring, 
>etc) under the same version number. It would be great if I could get 
>them to all share a set of defaults like the version number so I 
>wouldn't have to change every friggin pom when I release :-)."
>
>That is from where "releasing all at once." thing come from.
>I tried to list some weakness of that approach (imo it is not scaling well
>in larger projects and works fine for small ones).
>This part of the thread is really irrelevant here and it adds nothing
>interesting to main stream of our discussion.
>I just questioned brett's idea to promote it as "a best practice". Sorry for
>loosing the focus.
>
>What's importand here is that we started this "releasing all at once"
>subject as somebody pointed to it as a possible 
>remedy to a problem which I have decribed before: we have to explicitly
>define the version of the parent project in POMs and 
>when parent pom gets updated this change is not propagated. So this is
>someting we should concentrete on - and forgot and the moment
>about other subjects mentioned in this discussion. 
>
>If I understand you idea you would like to add some extra tags to The Group
>POM,.
>Say that we want to do this for plexus and you will add them to 
>http://cvs.plexus.codehaus.org/plexus/pom.xml?rev=1.11&view=auto
>
>Can you explain how do you want to have any changes in that pom propagated
>down the hierachy?
>Are you assuming that some poms will not be released and deployed to the
>repository so they will be never "frozen"?
>BTW: this is something we are doing now in plexus.
>
>Michal
>
>
>  
>


Mime
View raw message