That is OK. I have reverted your commit and am testing the build for a second time doing it the correct way.
Ralph > On May 28, 2022, at 9:14 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > It worked, but I had to specify where the parent pom was in the submodules. > Are you saying I could get the same effect by importing the bom in the parent > pom? If so, that certainly seems easier. > > — > Matt Sicker > >> On May 28, 2022, at 18:15, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Why is this necessary? I would think having the parent import the >> bom/pom.xml should be enough. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On May 27, 2022, at 6:18 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>
