Le ven. 20 mai 2022 à 22:21, Slawomir Jaranowski <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I was convinced that plexus is deprecated [1] [2], but you propose that > users writing plugins outside the Maven core team should use it. > Maybe I missed something? > There are multiple discussions - can try to find them back next week if needed - explaning why using JSR<xxx> does not comply to maven pluggable design and how an antipattern and a promise of issues it is. So until we have a clean API we have to stay in the status-quo which is plexus AFAIK today. > > There is no information [3] that JSR303 should be used only in Maven core > plugins / components. > Let's add that then :). > > [1] https://codehaus-plexus.github.io/plexus-containers/index.html > [2] > > https://codehaus-plexus.github.io/plexus-containers/plexus-component-annotations/ > [3] https://maven.apache.org/maven-jsr330.html > > > pt., 20 maj 2022 o 21:13 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > I'm not sure for shared, I always considered them as internals of maven > > projects and rarely saw them reused except a very few times but reasoning > > is the same whatever module we speak about: does it impact external > > consumer? If yes -> only org.apache.maven API or assimilated/assimilable > > (plexus is today I think), else we don't care and do what we like IMHO. > > > > > > Le ven. 20 mai 2022 à 21:01, Sylwester Lachiewicz <[email protected] > > > > a > > écrit : > > > > > And what about shared libraries? they can be used by plugins or even > > > externally. > > > Sylwester > > > > > > pt., 20 maj 2022, 19:15 użytkownik Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > [email protected]> > > > napisał: > > > > > > > It is quite simple: > > > > > > > > Maven plugin: maven API or plexus annotations are preferred > > > > Maven core: JSR 330 is out internal API for IoC lookups/injections > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 20 mai 2022 à 18:08, Slawomir Jaranowski < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I'm a little confused - what should be conclusions from this > > > discussion? > > > > > > > > > > I asked about using JSR330 with maven components like MavenProject, > > > > > MavenSession ... in plugin Mojo code. > > > > > But I see discussion about using JSR330 at general in Maven plugins > > > > > > > > > > Currently we widely use JSR330 in core Maven plugins as > replacement > > > for > > > > > plexus annotations. > > > > > > > > > > Can anybody else summarize it? ... Maybe I wrong understood this > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > śr., 18 maj 2022 o 16:07 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 18 mai 2022 à 15:19, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected] > > > > a > > > > > écrit > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 14:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 18 mai 2022 à 15:03, Stuart McCulloch < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > écrit > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do wonder whether we're conflating the real issues of > > > exposing > > > > > the > > > > > > > CDI > > > > > > > > > API (for @Typed) with the much smaller JSR330 API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes as soon as you have a different version needed by a > plugin > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > api > > > > > > > > exposed (parent first forced - and if not forced we dont know > > if > > > it > > > > > > > works). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's only ever been one version of the JSR 330 API because > > it's > > > so > > > > > > small > > > > > > > and complete (and I'd be surprised if the jakarta.inject API is > > any > > > > > > > different...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We probably also thought javax.annotation would never get dead > > > > > annotations > > > > > > nor build time annotations and it just did so not sure I would > bet. > > > > > > Size is not much an issue too, actually new API are fine but > > > modifying > > > > > > existing can create a mess, in particular with proxies. > > > > > > Last thing is that JSR 330 is not an user API anyway since it > does > > > not > > > > > > define the associated behavior so at the end, while it is small, > it > > > is > > > > > > worth keeping maven specific API IMHO for the user facing part of > > our > > > > > > deliverables. > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note: I never wrote it wouldnt be great to reuse a standard > > API > > > > for > > > > > > our own API, I just write it is not compatible with a plugin > system > > > in > > > > > > general until you forbid other usages of that API which is not > what > > > we > > > > > want > > > > > > for maven plugins IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we shouldnt leak what others can use in the API - no > parent > > > > > > ClassRealm > > > > > > > > access. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have a link to an issue that specifically > > involved > > > > > > > exporting > > > > > > > > > the JSR330 API (I did a quick search but the threads I > found > > > were > > > > > all > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > the CDI API) > > > > > > > > > IIRC there was only one external plugin/extension that ever > > > used > > > > > > > @Typed, > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > we could easily just stop exporting the CDI API while > > > continuing > > > > to > > > > > > > > export > > > > > > > > > JSR330 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (other comments inline below...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 10:52, Jason van Zyl < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have used SLF4J and JSR330 in plugins for years without > > > > issue. > > > > > > They > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > still work and nothing has mysteriously stopped working > > even > > > > made > > > > > > 7+ > > > > > > > > > years > > > > > > > > > > ago. I honestly don’t see much point in making our own > > > > > annotations, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > I’ve not encountered any of the issues Romain presents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Romain’s points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I don’t see it as an issue that two entirely different > > > > > universes > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > classes don’t work 100% in the same classloader. Just > fork > > > and > > > > > use > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > separate process as these two universes were never meant > to > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the same classloader. They don’t run that way in > production > > > so > > > > > why > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > you try doing that during a build or testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I don’t think that’s an issue, if we wanted to augment > > > what > > > > we > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > another CI spec we can with Sisu. I think any of the > > standard > > > > CI > > > > > > > > > > specifications provide everything we might potentially > > need. > > > We > > > > > may > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > them now, but Sisu would allow us to use which ever spec > we > > > > > wished, > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > whatever combination we wish. Stuart, correct me if I’m > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, supporting different annotations is one of the main > > > features > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Sisu - > > > > > > > > > it doesn't force you to export a particular API (the > previous > > > > > > decision > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > export JSR330 to plugins was because it was a standard, so > it > > > > made > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > easier to share injectable components between Maven and > other > > > > > > > ecosystems > > > > > > > > > without having to continually write adapters - but it's > not a > > > > > > > fundamental > > > > > > > > > requirement) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. It’s been fine for how many years? Sisu is our defense > > > here, > > > > > it > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > look at annotation A or B and provide the same behavior > for > > > the > > > > > > user. > > > > > > > > I’m > > > > > > > > > > sure Stuart can show us how to get javax.inject and > > > > > jakarta.inject > > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously for a co-existence and/or transition. > Again > > > > > Stuart, > > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > > me if I’m wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's an initial PR to add jakarta.inject support to > Guice > > > > which > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > are working on - once that's in the changes needed in Sisu > > are > > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > > > small. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Slawomir Jaranowski < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But from other side we can use JSR-330 in Mojo [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so we will: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Parameter( defaultValue = "${project}", readonly = > > true, > > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > > > > > true ) > > > > > > > > > > > private MavenProject project; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > > > > > > > > public SuperMojo( Jsr330Component component ) > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From code perspective will be clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > > > > > > > > public SuperMojo( MavenProject project, > > Jsr330Component > > > > > > > component > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/maven-jsr330.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pon., 16 maj 2022 o 18:42 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Sławomir, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> This is a complex topic, basically there is a will to > > get > > > a > > > > > real > > > > > > > IoC > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >> maven-core and keep a maven specific API for plugin > > > writers > > > > so > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > tempted > > > > > > > > > > >> to say option 1 for mojo. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> As a reminder the issues exposing @Inject are: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. We can conflict with plugins (it is the case > already > > > and > > > > a > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> servers have to workaround that with custom > > classloaders) > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. We have no guarantee next version of @Inject will > be > > > > > > > compatible - > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > >> is a trend to break at jakarta EE > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. When we'll want to migrate to jakarta.inject (or > > > another > > > > > API) > > > > > > > > we'll > > > > > > > > > > >> break all consumers if it is used outside maven > project > > > > itself > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Where this policy has its limitations is that > extensions > > > are > > > > > now > > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> "plugins" in the sense it should only use a public API > > but > > > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > >> to use internal one (@Inject). > > > > > > > > > > >> So while I think option 1 is really the way to go, we > > > > probably > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > >> work to extend it to extension mid-term and clean the > > API > > > > for > > > > > > > maven > > > > > > > > 4. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hope it helps. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > > > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | > Blog > > > > > > > > > > >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > > > > > > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > > > > > > > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | > > Book > > > > > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Le lun. 16 mai 2022 à 18:13, Slawomir Jaranowski < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > > > >> écrit : > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> We can inject Maven components into plugins in many > > ways > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> We can use @Parameter, like: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${project}", readonly > = > > > > true, > > > > > > > > > required = > > > > > > > > > > >>> true ) > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${session}", readonly > = > > > > true, > > > > > > > > > required = > > > > > > > > > > >>> true ) > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Parameter( defaultValue = "${mojoExecution}", > > > readonly > > > > = > > > > > > > true, > > > > > > > > > > >>> required = true ) > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> We can use DI with > > > > > > > @org.apache.maven.plugins.annotations.Component > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Component > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Component > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Component > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> We can use DI with @javax.inject.Inject on fields ... > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Inject > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenProject project; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Inject > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MavenSession session; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Inject > > > > > > > > > > >>> private MojoExecution mojoExecution; > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> And DI with constructor: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> @Inject > > > > > > > > > > >>> public SuperMojo( MavenProject project, > MavenSession > > > > > > session, > > > > > > > > > > >>> MojoExecution execution ) > > > > > > > > > > >>> { > > > > > > > > > > >>> } > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Which way should be preferred, which one to avoid? > And > > > why? > > > > > > > > > > >>> Can we use DI for all Maven components? > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sławomir Jaranowski > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction > > > > between > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > > and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his > > > body; > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > education and his recreation. He hardly knows which is > > which. > > > > He > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > > pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is > > > doing, > > > > > and > > > > > > > > leaves > > > > > > > > > > others to determine whether he is working or playing. To > > > > himself, > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > appears to be doing both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- François-René de Chateaubriand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sławomir Jaranowski >
