Hi Andriy, Sure, here is a public pom - a few excludes are likely no more needed like javax ones but overall it is working as expected like that, ie dependency:tree is minimal and functional: https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans-meecrowave/blob/master/meecrowave-core/pom.xml#L139
Le mer. 11 nov. 2020 à 23:07, Andriy Redko <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hey Romain, > > I think it is worth the efforts to do housekeeping work and cleanup > the dependencies. I am not sure we could do this as one big bang change > but delivering iterative improvements with each release should work. The > idea with grouping dependencies into separate POMs/BOMs should be > implementable. > Do you have examples of the exclusions you have seen people do most often, > may > be would could target those first? > > AFAIK we try to use optional dependencies whenever possible, indentifying > which > modules do not follow and fixing that would be definitely useful. Anyway, > I think > the exclusions should be more like an exception than a rule, if they are > required > in most cases, this is not good. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Andriy Redko > > RMB> Hi everyone, > > RMB> CXF dependency management is based on being self contained. > RMB> Was not working bad years ago when it was using geronimo bundles but > since > RMB> some years it becomes more and more work to integrate each cxf release > RMB> because dependencies became greedy. > > RMB> Here are the main challenges: > > RMB> 1. spec jars are using jakarta (whereas the app/soft can use javax, > RMB> geronimo, smix and other flavors) > RMB> 2. most modules leak not required dependencies (thinking to jta, jms, > rmi > RMB> out of my head) > RMB> 3. some java 11 oriented dependencies are popping up whereas they are > not > RMB> needed in 80% of the cases (activation, jaxb for ex) > RMB> 4. module rarely/never mark not required dependencies as being > RMB> optional/provided > > RMB> To give you an idea, it is not uncommon to have ~15 exclusions to all > cxf > RMB> modules when importing them. > > RMB> Is it something identified? Any plan to enhance this (like having > RMB> aggregator poms "cxf-spec", "cxf-dep-optional", "cxf-java9" to ease > the > RMB> exclusions? making it provided and having aggregator pom with the > RMB> depencencies marked as required (strict module vs consumed pom > modules))? > > RMB> Side note: explosing cxf-core can also help, it contains a lot of > optional > RMB> stuff which can also make this work harder to maintain. > > RMB> Romain Manni-Bucau > RMB> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > RMB> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > RMB> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > RMB> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > RMB> < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > >
