maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: best practices
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:19:48 GMT
What happens if any dependencies are looking for that support?

Will they bomb out or fail gracefully?

I.O.W. if you can still drop it in as a generic replacement => version
change

If you cannot use it as a generic replacement => different artifact =>
change groupId

for example...

I have https://github.com/stephenc/redmine-java-api which is
https://github.com/taskadapter/redmine-java-api switched to use slf4j in
place of some crappy piece of sh1t logging adapter code they rolled
themselves. Because I have altered the API contract by removing their
logging adapter code I maintain that at a different groupId. It is
otherwise API compatible, but the changes I have made are breaking changes
so I moved the groupId (never mind I needed a working version in central so
I had to change the groupId anyway... I *could* have got away with pushing
an alternative version number to our corp maven repo)

On 17 July 2012 15:09, Michał Zegan <webczat_200@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> For example recompiling to drop compatibility with unsupported jsr14
> (namely osgi 4.3).
>
> W dniu 2012-07-17 16:05, Stephen Connolly pisze:
> > What none of us know is the scope of changes between this artifact and
> the
> > original...
> >
> > if all you are doing is rolling a cut from the latest SCM head because
> you
> > cannot wait for the next release => just change the version
> >
> > if you are majorly refactoring in such a way that the API or behaviour
> > contract will be changed => change the groupId
> >
> > if you are somewhere in between, you are going to have to make that call
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > On 17 July 2012 15:02, Michał Zegan <webczat_200@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > I don't want to add exclusions for everything that requires that.
> >
> > W dniu 2012-07-17 15:57, Ron Wheeler pisze:
> > >>> If you exclude the stock version from the direct dependencies and add
> > your version as a
> > dependency, you:
> > >>> a) get the configuration that you want
> > >>> b) you have documented in your POM, the exact configuration of
> > software bits and pieces that are required to build what you want (your
> > friends will someday love you for doing this or hate you if you don't)
> > >>>
> > >>> Being sneaky sometimes looks efficient but seldom is in the long
> term.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ron
> > >>> On 17/07/2012 9:49 AM, Michał Zegan wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQBXH8AAoJEIm05B02l8E6CKsP/RBlMDopk2hlWwkZGd3WkWyU
> zNiBSW0HPaAVffsr6aniscYBhPviqywOd/IklRhuqBtPtszrCGyO1SXem4zuW1jq
> FZTTG5Zj+NzsIIG/FVYZKhudIc99eBRrgkuy5VM+cutpuq1+NyWdEZLDtYGR+bGy
> YlO9qGB59sWTxXbk2Om5C2z5+1QreNT8soCMHPbULg+SxyLI8yNCD1N6+bx7zvhU
> JRsrA51fA76kQx2ch31I/pIxTdK3c9f9mttB7Wuf1zGXkmhv9NTDljZ03DzlD4IW
> XxahO6E5KC79NN16q+fvUwFPcjw2HR3FmyYQGiOc5XmqUC/fUBySFTj9G9mKwQGn
> BRl8K2jO0C3X44hscEJjhXS204nGlwGpH0IUQTLGyF2f+dz+7meE4i6GqlvwEjaT
> ZENnLzX0eS0dbQYem3FJeUXIoUjjUp70myq4rq7bvKHerrRQFHlGL7f+ApLStJX5
> Ps0qTH/xGtsU+PjPTNd3RJKyWfk4WvbXNVWjT+kLrlqL6pXommgI5/MZrAozot8m
> jR3Slbhy/J1KI7xcu4yL6aEyWVDU7qwZHXVvyVj6SjFAMvlMX3YwtcpilG2P1Ljh
> en/MKDTdUF8GKO4M/iOk59QJ7IPlD1FJq88UEiL/M6k0CuZzY/nRIZ6MnXTDBVoa
> +KHubq8FPLWhrg3Ma3Al
> =eu/j
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message