I don't understand fatjar and fatmodule. Why would we need that? How would maven treat this different from a regular jar / module ?
-h On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:10 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > The current draft of types we want to introduce (and packaging): > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 > > === > > Romain, I don't understand your "This is wrong, downstream is either module > or jar", as it was actually you and your example that mentioned "once put > it here, once put it there". Nothing is lost IMHO, just like in case of > "takari-jar" nothing is lost. > > Or if we misunderstood each other: by "downstream" I mean "down the road, > when a project being built, is about to be consumed as dependency". > > And the point is, that exactly due ArtifactHandler/ArtifactType/Type (in > mvn4), Maven "sees" it as "jar" or "module" or whatever, but for resolver, > those two are _same thing_. It is _same file_. And this is the crux, as for > the resolver, it is really about getting that one file, while the type (for > Maven) tells HOW to make use of it. So for resolving, there is no any kind > of "lost" information, again, the very same way it works for "takari-jar". > > T > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 3:52 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 15:29, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > > écrit : > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > So to return to the "root" idea (of Maven), Maven is "declarative", > where > > > users should declare what they want, it should most certainly not > "guess" > > > what user intent is. As long as we have "magical implicit guesswork" > > (like > > > that in javadoc) present in process, it is bad, as that means we do not > > > allow our users to express their goal. > > > > > > > Yes and i liked that but we broke it with forcing plugin version locking > > (for good) so we can need to revise our root too to match current world > > which is no more unique, makes years we ignore that fact but it already > > blows up. > > > > So my 2cts are we cant by design here, we tried hard and failed, not > > technically but by design. > > > > > > > > > Originally Mojos were envisioned to be simple, focused, doing one thing > > and > > > doing it well (a la UNIX tools). Some plugins went in the total > opposite > > > direction, as they became Godzilla plugins (with unmaintainable complex > > and > > > large amounts of "logic" -- guess logic and bloated codebase) targeting > > to > > > solve "everything". This also resulted in our users assuming "every > > problem > > > should have a corresponding Mojo" (this also steered toward bloated, > over > > > complex Mojos), where many many other aspects and capabilities of Maven > > > were totally neglected, like lifecycle, custom packaging and so on. > > > > > > In short, Romain, yes, today, you CAN build all sort of things in > "smart > > > way", just like cooking a soup: get a good base (packaging), add a > little > > > bit of this (mojo A) and a little bit of that (mojo B) and voila, you > > will > > > end up with a "soup". And it works, yes, but this "smart" way has many > > > pitfalls along the way, with most problematic of not being explicit. > But > > by > > > doing that, your build becomes Ant-ish (imperative-ish), and you are > > > sliding off the declarative path. > > > > > > > For cases needing it and all the mentionned ones are (and will) NOT (be) > > mainstream. > > So all good IMHO. > > > > > > > Also, you ARE aware that if you build a project w/ packaging=module > (that > > > as output has an artifact with extension jar), you DON'T HAVE TO > address > > it > > > downstream (when you depend on it) as "module", right? This is the > actual > > > reason why I brought up Takari Lifecycle, as there you are building > > > projects with packaging=takari-jar, but when you consume those, you > refer > > > to them as type=jar, and not as type=takari-jar, right? > > > > > > > This is wrong, downstream is either module or jar, here you loose if it > is > > a module transitively and module assume all transitive deps are which is > > very often wrong so it does not work downstream. > > > > > > > So, I have a feeling that you bring bold conclusions (like "Your > solution > > > is valid technically but does not solve the original issue"), you do > not > > > really understand what I am trying to say here. > > > > > > > Hooe you are true but trust me i went where you are and my conclusion is > it > > cant be done right for enough projects to be worth it. > > > > > > > Also, "this" certainly does NOT "work well today" (even in this thread > > poor > > > tooling mentioned), but true, you can hack-around it, or alike, but > none > > of > > > current solutions are explicit, declarative and naturally expressed in > > > Maven (but are bolted on). > > > > > > Finally, having anything "on top" of resolver is not gonna help > anything, > > > as Resolver is really about Artifacts only (Everything is an Artifact!) > > and > > > it is Maven on top of Resolver that should interpret these artifacts > > based > > > on user posed instructions (declarations). Resolver is really just > about > > > "getting" and "putting" artifacts, not USING them. > > > > > > > It foes cause it is not aboug resolver but enabling user to express path > > with maven abstraction, not resolution itself. > > > > Java is about paths, maven coordinates, we miss a link on user land to > make > > it smooth. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > T > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:56 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Romain, > > > > > > > > it's probably me, but I have no faintest idea what you are trying to > > > say... > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "standalone"? > > > > What is the wrong packaging? > > > > Why will I lose the ability to specify where it goes? Also, as I said > > > > before, if you list project/deps gav:jar AND gav:module, you would be > > > > putting _one same JAR_ on both paths (would you really want that?) > > > > Also, here we are speaking about _dependencies_ but you suddenly > switch > > > to > > > > building a project? > > > > > > > > But one thing for sure: we need _less_ "guess logic" and not _more of > > > it_. > > > > > > > > I think we are not talking about the same thing(s) here, but again, > > it's > > > > just maybe me. > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:44, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > a > > > >> écrit : > > > >> > > > >> > Can you provide a real example? As I don't quite understand, so > you > > > >> would > > > >> > have a dependency (a fat spring boot jar), that is a "module dep > is > > a > > > >> > module in compile/some tests but not at runtime (spring boot > > fatjar)". > > > >> So > > > >> > all this within one maven module (compile/test/runtime?). > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> You have an app (src/main/java), all the chain down the line uses > > > modules > > > >> cause compiler is standalone, surefire (junit-launcher) is > standalone, > > > >> javadoc etc...and the packaging phase (jar/war/fatjar/...) is not > > > >> standalone. > > > >> Then using module will make your build pass but your IT (if you have > > > else > > > >> your runtime) will not use that kind of construction/runtime. > > > >> the issue is as soon as you mark them modules then it must be module > > for > > > >> all plugins and therefore you will get a wrong packaging (think bnd > > for > > > >> ex) > > > >> or said otherwise you loose the consumption ability the JVM has > > > providing > > > >> both classpath and module path for the same jar (jlink requires deps > > to > > > be > > > >> modules but these modules can be used in the classpath most of the > > time, > > > >> in > > > >> particular in tests where it helps in several scenarii like > mocking). > > > >> > > > >> These are all valid features we don't want to break in maven. > > > >> > > > >> The consuming side is problematic since you restart from scratch, > all > > > the > > > >> jpms meta are to throw away cause we don't want to break the model > on > > > one > > > >> side and on another side it depends the consumer the way you consume > > it > > > >> and > > > >> dispatch the dependency on the classpath or module path. > > > >> > > > >> Your solution is valid technically but does not solve the original > > > issue, > > > >> it just moves it elsewhere IMHO. > > > >> > > > >> This already works well today at the cost of being explicit in the > > > plugins > > > >> configs and with your proposal it will still work at the same cost > > > (maybe > > > >> reversed). > > > >> > > > >> So ultimately I don't think it is a dep meta we need but more a > > wrapper > > > on > > > >> top of the resolver (the guess logic we have in plexus for ex) which > > > >> should > > > >> be easier to configure, maybe globally for the project and > ultimately > > > per > > > >> plugin (think "configuration" in gradle world of maven depencies set > > in > > > >> our > > > >> world)....or we just don't do anything and ease the dependency > > > referencing > > > >> (gav->path) to ease this explicit configuration - a bit like > including > > > >> dependencies:properties in core by default. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > T > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:12, Tamás Cservenák < > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > a > > > >> > > écrit : > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Given that jar (spring boot fatjar) is once this once that, > you > > > >> refer > > > >> > to > > > >> > > it > > > >> > > > in deps as needed: > > > >> > > > in one module is fat:jar in other is fat:module, as needed. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > You are the one explicitly telling what you want. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > In my example (and spring boot is not the only one, wars are > > another > > > >> > common > > > >> > > one, or any java command more generally) the two modules are a > > > single > > > >> > > one....and no doing two module would be worse than what we have > > > today. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > > >> > > > T > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:42 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Interesting but common case: a module dep is a module in > > > >> compile/some > > > >> > > > tests > > > >> > > > > but not at runtime (spring boot fatjar). > > > >> > > > > Back to explicit config in plugins and drop new module type? > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 07:46, Christoph Läubrich < > > > >> > m...@laeubi-soft.de> > > > >> > > a > > > >> > > > > écrit : > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > And if now I could supply additional properties from the > > > >> xml-model > > > >> > > ... > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Am 29.10.23 um 00:40 schrieb Tamás Cservenák: > > > >> > > > > > > And finally this is hardly gonna happen in Maven 3 > > lifespan, > > > >> as > > > >> > > sadly > > > >> > > > > > > ArtifactHandler of it is quite limited: has only one > flag: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L55 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sadly, Maven4 Type continued on this path, but luckily > we > > > are > > > >> in > > > >> > > > alpha, > > > >> > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > will propose a PR to type that currently looks like > this: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java#L80 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > And would rework it to be more (if not same as) the > > resolver > > > >> > > > > > ArtifactType: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactType.java#L63 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, for example > "add > > to > > > >> > > > classpath" > > > >> > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > really just one flag (added by ArifactType): > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactProperties.java#L58 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So, ArtifactProperties could be extended with > > > >> > > > "constitutesModulePath", > > > >> > > > > > > "agent" and so on... To make this really extensible. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In maven3 the ArtifactHandler this makes it impossible. > > > There > > > >> is > > > >> > > > still > > > >> > > > > > hope > > > >> > > > > > > in Maven 4 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks > > > >> > > > > > > T > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:32 AM Tamás Cservenák < > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This would also mean, that if you have a dependency > that > > is > > > >> > > already > > > >> > > > > JPMS > > > >> > > > > > >> modularized (is java9+ and has module-info), then: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> a) if you declare it as type="jar" it means you want to > > put > > > >> it > > > >> > on > > > >> > > > > > >> classpath (use it as "plain old jar") > > > >> > > > > > >> b) if you declare it as type="module" it means you want > > it > > > on > > > >> > > > > modulepath > > > >> > > > > > >> etc > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:30 AM Tamás Cservenák < > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Of course, the logic HOW and WHAT to make with these > > would > > > >> be > > > >> > > > needed > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > >>> be added to javadoc, compiler and all the plugins that > > > need > > > >> to > > > >> > > > > > distinguish. > > > >> > > > > > >>> But this would stop any need for any heuristic, > > guesswork, > > > >> > > > > smart-ness, > > > >> > > > > > >>> etc... > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> OTOH, if we introduce new packaging lifecycle "module" > > > (so a > > > >> > > > project > > > >> > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > >>> builds module would do project/packaging=module), it > > could > > > >> > nicely > > > >> > > > > > enforce > > > >> > > > > > >>> things like: > > > >> > > > > > >>> - prevent non allowed packages > > > >> > > > > > >>> - enforce presence of module-info.class (maybe some > > light > > > >> > > > > verification) > > > >> > > > > > >>> - ensure project is Java9+ etc > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Most of this was somewhat done in Takari Lifecycle > (also > > > >> with > > > >> > > > custom > > > >> > > > > > >>> packaging like "takari-jar" was). > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> T > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:26 AM Tamás Cservenák < > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So, basically this is what am proposing: > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/76f262538b5a11f6ee23d6d8c86f10ec > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Basically, Maven core (and hence plugins) could > > > distinguish > > > >> > > among > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different "types" of dependencies (while would all > > still > > > be > > > >> > > plain > > > >> > > > > > JARs). > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So "jar" would be put on classpath, "module" on > module > > > >> path, > > > >> > > > "agent" > > > >> > > > > > >>>> would got special treatment and so on. > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Point is to _differentiate_. > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> T > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Tamás Cservenák < > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Unsure from where you get that, but is wrong > > conclusion. > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> You can have dep1:jar, dep2:module, dep3:agent and > > all 3 > > > >> MAY > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (ArtifactHandler dependent, assuming "jar", "module" > > and > > > >> > > "agent" > > > >> > > > > > artifact > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> handlers all return extension=jar) refer to the same > > JAR > > > >> file > > > >> > > in > > > >> > > > > > your local > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> repository. > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Type merely adds "semantics" WHAT is it about, HOW > to > > > make > > > >> > use > > > >> > > of > > > >> > > > > it. > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Please see > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/repositories/artifacts.html#but-where-do-i-set-artifact-extension > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> T > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:17 AM Martin > Desruisseaux < > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Le 2023-10-28 à 22 h 54, Tamás Cservenák a écrit : > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I still see these just as new dependency types: > > > >> "module", > > > >> > > > > "agent", > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> "doclet", and so on. > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Does "dependency type" means the <type> element > > inside > > > >> > > > > <dependency>? > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> If > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> yes, then specifying a different type causes Maven > to > > > >> > > download a > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> different JAR, without changing the kind of path > > (class > > > >> path > > > >> > > > > versus > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> module path) where the JAR is put. The proposed > > <usage> > > > >> > > element > > > >> > > > > (or > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> whatever equivalent alternatives) has the opposite > > > >> semantic: > > > >> > > it > > > >> > > > > does > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> not > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> change the JAR to download, but put it on a > different > > > >> kind > > > >> > of > > > >> > > > > path. > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Martin > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > > >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
