To avoid rearranging all the directories, I'm moving the parent pom to its own directory, moving the bom pom to the root, and updating the rest of the poms to know where the old parent pom now is.
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:08 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agreed. I added the BOM POM later on and didn’t know of any established > patterns for modules as BOMs weren’t used extensively quite yet at the time > (and it was a Maven specific feature then, too; Spring ported the concept to > Gradle later on, and now Gradle has a native concept of the same thing). > > — > Matt Sicker > > On May 19, 2022, at 10:33, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, that would make sense. I am sure this happened simply because the bom > pom.xml was introduced way after the first releases. > > Ralph > > On May 18, 2022, at 11:38 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Even though we provide a BOM module (`log4j-bom`), we don't consume it > > ourselves. Hence occasionally we end up publishing artifacts not included > > in the BOM. Consuming our own BOM decreases the chances of missing out > > artifacts in BOM, though doesn't totally eliminate the chances of that > > happening. > > > When I read how Maven advises to structure the BOM module > > <https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#bill-of-materials-bom-poms>, > > I understand what needs to be in the case of Log4j is the following: > > > /pom.xml (`log4j-bom` module) > > /log4j-parent/pom.xml (`log4j` module importing `log4j-bom`) > > /log4j-parent/log4j-core/pom.xml (`log4j-core` module parented by `log4j`) > > > Though what we have in reality is the following: > > > /log4j-bom/pom.xml (`log4j-bom` module) > > /pom.xml (`log4j` module parented by `logging-parent`) > > /log4j-core/pom.xml (`log4j-core` module parented by `log4j`) > > > Ideally we should follow the Maven-advised approach and consume from our > > BOM parented by `logging-parent`. > > > What do you think? Is my interpretation of the Maven-advised approach > > correct? > >
