Maven POM dependencies

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Munteanu

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 2:55:23 AM7/1/10
to gwt-mpv-apt
I looked at the maven pom file and noticed these two dependencies:

<dependency>
<groupId>joist</groupId>
<artifactId>joist-util</artifactId>
<version>2010063001</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.tonicsystems</groupId>
<artifactId>jarjar</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>

but the build.xml file seems to suggest that these are not needed at
runtime, since they are jarjared

http://github.com/stephenh/gwt-mpv-apt/blob/master/processor/build.xml

nevertheless, they are declared in the build.xml as part of the 'build' config.

http://github.com/stephenh/gwt-mpv-apt/blob/master/processor/ivy.xml

Is this intended, or can the Maven artifact be used without any dependencies?

Robert

--
Sent from my (old) computer

Stephen Haberman

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 10:15:14 AM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com

> Is this intended, or can the Maven artifact be used without any
> dependencies?

You are correct, they are in the ivy build conf only so that they are
downloaded for the jarjar step of the gwt-mpv-apt build. They are not
needed by users at runtime.

I'm not a heavy maven user--is the optional=true enough to keep maven
from downloading it into consuming projects?

I admit I did not realize they were there--I typically get good results
using Ivy's makepom task:

http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/latest-milestone/use/makepom.html

But until you pointed it out, did not realize that it included
visibility=private confs in the pom.

And, unfortunately, I don't see a way to get the build conf dropped
entirely--I can map it to a scope like provided or system. Would that
be sufficient?

Given how simple gwt-mpv-apt's pom is, it could also just be created
with an ant copy/token replacement on the version.

- Stephen

Stephen Haberman

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 11:56:46 AM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com

> Is this intended, or can the Maven artifact be used without any
> dependencies?

Awesome job on the printMessage fix. I just integrated it and fixed the
GenEvent printMessage as well.

I pushed out a potential fix for the pom issue--I used the system scope,
not sure if provided makes more sense. Or if the dependencies just have
to be removed.

Let me know if the current attempt looks okay and I'll release 1.3.

- Stephen

Robert Munteanu

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 12:07:20 PM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Stephen Haberman
<ste...@exigencecorp.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this intended, or can the Maven artifact be used without any
>> dependencies?
>
> Awesome job on the printMessage fix. I just integrated it and fixed the
> GenEvent printMessage as well.
>
> I pushed out a potential fix for the pom issue--I used the system scope,
> not sure if provided makes more sense. Or if the dependencies just have
> to be removed.

I actually think the dependencies should be removed, since they are
not actually needed, as we have a jarjar'ed project. So I'd say keep
the optional+compile scope for now, and we should consider a way to
remove these dependencies.

Perhaps raising a bug against Ivy is the way to go. I'll save some
time and do this a bit later.

Hm... thinking about it - if we don't have any dependencies declared,
what is the point of generating a POM? We might as well 'waste' 10
minutes on making one, and implement a simple filter which replaces a
placeholder version with the correct one.

Robert

Robert

>
> Let me know if the current attempt looks okay and I'll release 1.3.
>
> - Stephen
>
>

--

Stephen Haberman

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 12:13:41 PM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com

> Perhaps raising a bug against Ivy is the way to go. I'll save some
> time and do this a bit later.

Agreed. Seems like there should be an exclude option on the makepom
mapping element.

> Hm... thinking about it - if we don't have any dependencies declared,
> what is the point of generating a POM? We might as well 'waste' 10
> minutes on making one, and implement a simple filter which replaces a
> placeholder version with the correct one.

Agreed, I think that is the best way to go for now.

- Stephen

Robert Munteanu

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 4:00:00 PM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com

OK, just sent you a request for a basic pom + an update of the
build.xml to include it.

Robert

Robert Munteanu

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 4:04:34 PM7/1/10
to gwt-m...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Stephen Haberman
<ste...@exigencecorp.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps raising a bug against Ivy is the way to go. I'll save some
>> time and do this a bit later.
>
> Agreed. Seems like there should be an exclude option on the makepom
> mapping element.
>

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1201

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages