Doesnt it mean you dont need type at all. I understand the idea to add new method in the handler but this is really a weird design and still blocked by the predefined set so user is still locked by design so not sure how it helps to rely on type.
Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 21:44, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a écrit : > Just 5 cents: > > Plugins (as "consumer of dependency") would NOT handle with type > _directlty_, but the _flags_. > > So, if you look at this table (a bit outdated): > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 > > m-compiler-p: handles artifacts flagged with CP, MP, AP > m-javadoc-p: handles artifacts flagged with DOC > and so on (just roughly to explain the idea). > > And nothing stops you to declare as many types as many needed (to describe > what you want), the plugins will go for flags only. > > So in short: plugins will not go for type, the go for flags defined by > types (and many type can use same flag) > > T > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 9:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 20:55, Martin Desruisseaux < > > martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit : > > > > > Le 2023-11-03 à 19 h 33, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > > > > >> putting a dependency on the module-path of a non-JPMS application > > > >> such as Spring is okay > > > >> > > > > Is not ok for me and is a big hidden bug of current guess logic when > > > > not disabled IMHO, we should drop all that guess code probably. > > > > > > > The current guess code in Maven 3 puts the dependency on the > class-path, > > > which in my understanding is the behaviour that you want. The <type> > > > proposal would put the dependency on whatever path the <type> said it > > > should be. If the user is not okay with that, (s)he can override in the > > > same way that (s)he can override the version of transitive > dependencies. > > > > > > > Means you create as much type as plugin*pathTypePerPlugin, looks > overkill. > > And just using class/module paths does not work, so ultimately plugins > will > > need filters and maybe just rely on scopes+filters - still trying to > find a > > solution making eveyone happy. > > > > > > > A dependency may be designed for working only on the module path (it is > > > developer's choice as any other software requirement, such as the > > > minimal Java version), which is why I think that by default, dependency > > > should go where the library producer said that it should go. But again, > > > users can override if they want. > > > > > > > > > > Then question is how do you enable modules but this is not a question > > > > for your maven module but per plugin (jaxws plugin will not use the > > > > same modules than compiler nor javadoc for ex). This is where the > type > > > > proposal is not granular enough to handle advanced cases we are > > > > talking about > > > > > > > Are you referring to the --add-modules or --limit-modules options of > > > Java? If so, I think that they are compatible with the <type> proposal > > > and can be discussed in a next step. The first step that we are trying > > > to resolve now is to build the module-path. Next, it is indeed possible > > > to tell Java to "see" only a subset of the modules available on the > > > module-path. I think that this option is more typically used when the > > > module-path is a whole directory instead than an enumeration of > > > dependencies as Maven does. If users nevertheless want to use the > > > --add-modules or --limit-modules options, maybe they could be options > of > > > the exec plugin. Those options are not paths, only comma-separated > lists > > > of modules names. > > > > > > > Yes, but you just added a jaxws type to maven core - see why this does > not > > scale/work? > > Just means we cant get external plugins anymore or we will duplicate a > lot > > deps (same gav different type...please no). > > > > > > > > > > > (…snip…) ie put all the code in src/main cause by design it is what > > > > you want, a single module where maven creates 2 modules per maven > > module > > > > > > > I'm not sure if you are talking about the Java compiler's "Module > Source > > > Hierarchy" here. If yes, this is indeed something that I would like, > but > > > I'm not trying to push that for Maven (I presume that it would be a too > > > big change). My hope for Maven has smaller scope: module-path and > making > > > easier to setup the --add-exports and --add-opens options. > > > > > > > This already works with maven, needs to tune the folder layouts and a few > > plugins - and to be honest I hope it never becomes the default, so not > sure > > what misses there. > > > > > > > > Not sure I understand the issue, you highlight a bug in exec maven > > > > plugin (classpath and module path configuration share a single toggle > > > > - and toString BTW) but ultimately you misconfigured the plugin too: > > > > > > > Thanks for the configuration tip, but it works by setting the > > > --class-path and --module-path options in the <arguments> block of the > > > exec-maven-plugin. My issue was also execution with surefire, javadoc, > > > etc. All plugins need the same configuration. > > > > > > > It is the same there, nothing relates to depency type (which is my > point). > > > > > > > > > > > it is really about getting split paths more easily than getting a > > > > global for the maven module configuration which will prevent you to > > > > configure accurately each plugin which is actually required for these > > > > advanced JPMS cases (jaxws is really a hurting case). > > > > > > > Global configuration is also desirable. Per-plugin tuning may also be > > > desirable, but there is good chances that they would be modifications > of > > > the global configuration instead of something independent (providing > > > that the global configuration has the <type> proposal). > > > > > > > I see a lot of overlap but no 1-1 cases except on simple projects. > > Compiler != Surefire != Javadoc for ex, this is why type looks very > > limiting until combinable or each plugin has filter capability which also > > mean type is useless. > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, default should stay classpath and module path shouldn't be > > > > enabled until requested, creates too much weird behaviors IMHO. > > > > > > > Weird behaviour happens when the library is not on the path it was > > > designed for. Weird behaviour if we put a designed-for-class-path > > > dependency on the module-path, and potentially broken behaviour if we > > > put a designed-for-module-path dependency on the class-path. The reason > > > why we do not observe the latter often is because library producers are > > > aware that the Java world is still a lot class-path centric, and > > > provides workaround in their library for making execution on class-path > > > possible. > > > > > > > Exactly! > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > >
