--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 7:52 PM
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ceki
> Gulcu <c...@qos.ch>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >
> >>> Forgive me for asking, but were you aware of
> the above. And if you
> >>> were, would you care to explain a scenario in
> mind which is troubling
> >>> you?
> >>
> >> First: The solution is perfect for a normal user
> i.e. somebody building an
> >> application, not a library/framework. The problem
> starts when somebody
> >> publishes some artifacts that explicitly depend on
> cl-0.0.0-EMPTY:
> >>
> >> 1. Me building A, depending on B and C
> >> 2. B depends on cl-0.0.0-EMPTY
> >> 3. C depends on cl-1.1.1
> >>
> >> According the definition above I get a
> ClassNotFoundException running A if
> >> I
> >> declare my dependencies in sequence B, C. Since
> both deps use CL and A
> >> inherits it transitively at equal level, the first
> one wins => boom.
> >
> >
> > You are correct. In defense of 0.0-EMPTY authors of
> libraries are not
> > supposed to use use cl-0.0-EMPTY. Only end-users
> should use it. Any
> > documentation for cl-0.0-EMPTY would need to emphasize
> that in bold
> > and red print. Moreover, if you are an author of a
> library, if you
> > don't want to use commons-logging, you can simply
> remove the
> > dependency on commons-logging. You would not need
> cl-0.0-EMPTY at
> > all. You would have use for cl-0.0-EMPTY if as an
> author of a library
> > or framework with many dependencies (e.g. wicket,
> tapestry) you had a
> > dependency which in turn depended on commons-logging,
> (and only if you
> > were using Maven and SLF4J).
> >
> > Stern warnings in the documentation of version
> 0.0-EMPTY should goad
> > authors of shared components away from 0.0-EMPTY.
> However, I agree
> > with you that the risk of misuse of 0.0-EMPTY cannot
> be completely
> > alleviated. It's a tough call to make.
>
> So the alternative to releasing the version to the main
> maven repo is
> to setup a one-off repo just containing this 0.0-EMPTY
> version of
> logging and users who want to depend on it adding that repo
> to their
> pom along with the 0.0-EMPTY dependency. Thats just a few
> extra lines
> of XML and guarantees there can be no problem. I don't
> think we should
> do this if theres a potential problem for commons-logging
> users that
> don't want this hack and a simple and easy solution for
> those that do.
>
Since I'm in the middle of prototyping a new $work app that uses slf4j/logback
and needs such exclusion of [logging], can I gloatingly interject that Ivy
interacts with Maven repos AND has exclusion declaration built right in? ;)
-Matt
> Niall
>
> >> - Jörg
> >
> > --
> > Ceki Gülcü
> > Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible
> logging framework for
> > Java.
> > http://logback.qos.ch
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
