Oh, and just as "dependency reduced pom", the flatten does not work within the reactor _either_.
In fact, the existence of a flatten plugin per se is an IMHO sign that "something is wrong" here. Thanks T On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm, new types are not a real option for that, it is fully the lifecycle > (plugin chain thesz days since lifecycles are never rich enough and it > depends too much on projects. > > Your fatjar example is not a type but the flatten plugin presence and it is > really not a type cause it implies a specific pom resolution which is out > of the artifact (type) handling scope. > IMHO we must not break that rule and not abuse of the resolver, it is > already overcomplex for its role....and once again does not help with jpms > or plugin config set outside very few plugin scope. > > If you use types for this fatjar dep handling you also require downstream > projects to consume all their upstream chain plugins and handlers which is > not doable in real life so sticking to the fair minimum is wishable (agree > we wrongly added types as workarounds). > > > Le lun. 30 oct. 2023 à 22:00, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > écrit : > > > ... makes resolver STOP _whatever_ the referenced POM list as > dependencies > > (basically does not matter, the node once collected will NOT dive into > > getting possible children). > > > > T > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:58 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > > wrote: > > > > > The fat* mechanism is already present even in maven 3.9, but not so > > > visible: > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L51 > > > > > > Is "fat" when this method returns true. > > > > > > Moreover, the new type would give you (as a consumer) more control, it > > > allows you to NOT depend on upstream publisher (is he rewriting POM? > Does > > > he do a good job rewriting it? etc). If you declare your dependency as > > > "fatjar" and not just "jar", or "fatmodule" not just "module", it makes > > > resolver STOP. > > > > > > Thanks > > > T > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:53 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Howdy, > > >> > > >> The fat* is needed to STOP resolver resolving further external > > >> dependencies (or in-reactor ones), it gives you more control to > > _express_ > > >> this case to Maven. > > >> > > >> Typical case: > > >> - you have in reactor "uber" JAR built (with replace POM set) > > >> - hence, you deploy the rewritten POM, so for consumers you are OK > > >> - BUT _within reactor_ Maven will NOT (and cannot) be aware of > > >> _rewritten_ module, so you need to "exclude all" in subsequent modules > > >> depending on uber module: > > >> > > >> https://github.com/maveniverse/mima/blob/main/cli/pom.xml#L83-L94 > > >> So, this one would need to be type="fatjar" and result would be same > but > > >> more expressive: > > >> > > >> Basically these just extend the "vocabulary" to express what it is. > > >> > > >> T > > >> > > >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Henning Schmiedehausen < > > >> henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I don't understand fatjar and fatmodule. Why would we need that? How > > >>> would > > >>> maven treat this different from a regular jar / module ? > > >>> > > >>> -h > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:10 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Howdy, > > >>> > > > >>> > The current draft of types we want to introduce (and packaging): > > >>> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 > > >>> > > > >>> > === > > >>> > > > >>> > Romain, I don't understand your "This is wrong, downstream is > either > > >>> module > > >>> > or jar", as it was actually you and your example that mentioned > "once > > >>> put > > >>> > it here, once put it there". Nothing is lost IMHO, just like in > case > > of > > >>> > "takari-jar" nothing is lost. > > >>> > > > >>> > Or if we misunderstood each other: by "downstream" I mean "down the > > >>> road, > > >>> > when a project being built, is about to be consumed as dependency". > > >>> > > > >>> > And the point is, that exactly due > ArtifactHandler/ArtifactType/Type > > >>> (in > > >>> > mvn4), Maven "sees" it as "jar" or "module" or whatever, but for > > >>> resolver, > > >>> > those two are _same thing_. It is _same file_. And this is the > crux, > > >>> as for > > >>> > the resolver, it is really about getting that one file, while the > > type > > >>> (for > > >>> > Maven) tells HOW to make use of it. So for resolving, there is no > any > > >>> kind > > >>> > of "lost" information, again, the very same way it works for > > >>> "takari-jar". > > >>> > > > >>> > T > > >>> > > > >>> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 3:52 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 15:29, Tamás Cservenák < > ta...@cservenak.net > > > > > >>> a > > >>> > > écrit : > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Howdy, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > So to return to the "root" idea (of Maven), Maven is > > "declarative", > > >>> > where > > >>> > > > users should declare what they want, it should most certainly > not > > >>> > "guess" > > >>> > > > what user intent is. As long as we have "magical implicit > > >>> guesswork" > > >>> > > (like > > >>> > > > that in javadoc) present in process, it is bad, as that means > we > > >>> do not > > >>> > > > allow our users to express their goal. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Yes and i liked that but we broke it with forcing plugin version > > >>> locking > > >>> > > (for good) so we can need to revise our root too to match current > > >>> world > > >>> > > which is no more unique, makes years we ignore that fact but it > > >>> already > > >>> > > blows up. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > So my 2cts are we cant by design here, we tried hard and failed, > > not > > >>> > > technically but by design. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Originally Mojos were envisioned to be simple, focused, doing > one > > >>> thing > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > doing it well (a la UNIX tools). Some plugins went in the total > > >>> > opposite > > >>> > > > direction, as they became Godzilla plugins (with unmaintainable > > >>> complex > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > large amounts of "logic" -- guess logic and bloated codebase) > > >>> targeting > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > solve "everything". This also resulted in our users assuming > > "every > > >>> > > problem > > >>> > > > should have a corresponding Mojo" (this also steered toward > > >>> bloated, > > >>> > over > > >>> > > > complex Mojos), where many many other aspects and capabilities > of > > >>> Maven > > >>> > > > were totally neglected, like lifecycle, custom packaging and so > > on. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > In short, Romain, yes, today, you CAN build all sort of things > in > > >>> > "smart > > >>> > > > way", just like cooking a soup: get a good base (packaging), > add > > a > > >>> > little > > >>> > > > bit of this (mojo A) and a little bit of that (mojo B) and > voila, > > >>> you > > >>> > > will > > >>> > > > end up with a "soup". And it works, yes, but this "smart" way > has > > >>> many > > >>> > > > pitfalls along the way, with most problematic of not being > > >>> explicit. > > >>> > But > > >>> > > by > > >>> > > > doing that, your build becomes Ant-ish (imperative-ish), and > you > > >>> are > > >>> > > > sliding off the declarative path. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > For cases needing it and all the mentionned ones are (and will) > NOT > > >>> (be) > > >>> > > mainstream. > > >>> > > So all good IMHO. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Also, you ARE aware that if you build a project w/ > > packaging=module > > >>> > (that > > >>> > > > as output has an artifact with extension jar), you DON'T HAVE > TO > > >>> > address > > >>> > > it > > >>> > > > downstream (when you depend on it) as "module", right? This is > > the > > >>> > actual > > >>> > > > reason why I brought up Takari Lifecycle, as there you are > > building > > >>> > > > projects with packaging=takari-jar, but when you consume those, > > you > > >>> > refer > > >>> > > > to them as type=jar, and not as type=takari-jar, right? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > This is wrong, downstream is either module or jar, here you loose > > if > > >>> it > > >>> > is > > >>> > > a module transitively and module assume all transitive deps are > > >>> which is > > >>> > > very often wrong so it does not work downstream. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > So, I have a feeling that you bring bold conclusions (like > "Your > > >>> > solution > > >>> > > > is valid technically but does not solve the original issue"), > you > > >>> do > > >>> > not > > >>> > > > really understand what I am trying to say here. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Hooe you are true but trust me i went where you are and my > > >>> conclusion is > > >>> > it > > >>> > > cant be done right for enough projects to be worth it. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Also, "this" certainly does NOT "work well today" (even in this > > >>> thread > > >>> > > poor > > >>> > > > tooling mentioned), but true, you can hack-around it, or alike, > > but > > >>> > none > > >>> > > of > > >>> > > > current solutions are explicit, declarative and naturally > > >>> expressed in > > >>> > > > Maven (but are bolted on). > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Finally, having anything "on top" of resolver is not gonna help > > >>> > anything, > > >>> > > > as Resolver is really about Artifacts only (Everything is an > > >>> Artifact!) > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > it is Maven on top of Resolver that should interpret these > > >>> artifacts > > >>> > > based > > >>> > > > on user posed instructions (declarations). Resolver is really > > just > > >>> > about > > >>> > > > "getting" and "putting" artifacts, not USING them. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > It foes cause it is not aboug resolver but enabling user to > express > > >>> path > > >>> > > with maven abstraction, not resolution itself. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Java is about paths, maven coordinates, we miss a link on user > land > > >>> to > > >>> > make > > >>> > > it smooth. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks > > >>> > > > T > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 2:56 PM Tamás Cservenák < > > >>> ta...@cservenak.net> > > >>> > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Romain, > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > it's probably me, but I have no faintest idea what you are > > >>> trying to > > >>> > > > say... > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > What do you mean by "standalone"? > > >>> > > > > What is the wrong packaging? > > >>> > > > > Why will I lose the ability to specify where it goes? Also, > as > > I > > >>> said > > >>> > > > > before, if you list project/deps gav:jar AND gav:module, you > > >>> would be > > >>> > > > > putting _one same JAR_ on both paths (would you really want > > >>> that?) > > >>> > > > > Also, here we are speaking about _dependencies_ but you > > suddenly > > >>> > switch > > >>> > > > to > > >>> > > > > building a project? > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > But one thing for sure: we need _less_ "guess logic" and not > > >>> _more of > > >>> > > > it_. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > I think we are not talking about the same thing(s) here, but > > >>> again, > > >>> > > it's > > >>> > > > > just maybe me. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > T > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >>> > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:44, Tamás Cservenák < > > >>> ta...@cservenak.net> > > >>> > a > > >>> > > > >> écrit : > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > Can you provide a real example? As I don't quite > understand, > > >>> so > > >>> > you > > >>> > > > >> would > > >>> > > > >> > have a dependency (a fat spring boot jar), that is a > "module > > >>> dep > > >>> > is > > >>> > > a > > >>> > > > >> > module in compile/some tests but not at runtime (spring > boot > > >>> > > fatjar)". > > >>> > > > >> So > > >>> > > > >> > all this within one maven module (compile/test/runtime?). > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> You have an app (src/main/java), all the chain down the line > > >>> uses > > >>> > > > modules > > >>> > > > >> cause compiler is standalone, surefire (junit-launcher) is > > >>> > standalone, > > >>> > > > >> javadoc etc...and the packaging phase (jar/war/fatjar/...) > is > > >>> not > > >>> > > > >> standalone. > > >>> > > > >> Then using module will make your build pass but your IT (if > > you > > >>> have > > >>> > > > else > > >>> > > > >> your runtime) will not use that kind of > construction/runtime. > > >>> > > > >> the issue is as soon as you mark them modules then it must > be > > >>> module > > >>> > > for > > >>> > > > >> all plugins and therefore you will get a wrong packaging > > (think > > >>> bnd > > >>> > > for > > >>> > > > >> ex) > > >>> > > > >> or said otherwise you loose the consumption ability the JVM > > has > > >>> > > > providing > > >>> > > > >> both classpath and module path for the same jar (jlink > > requires > > >>> deps > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > be > > >>> > > > >> modules but these modules can be used in the classpath most > of > > >>> the > > >>> > > time, > > >>> > > > >> in > > >>> > > > >> particular in tests where it helps in several scenarii like > > >>> > mocking). > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> These are all valid features we don't want to break in > maven. > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> The consuming side is problematic since you restart from > > >>> scratch, > > >>> > all > > >>> > > > the > > >>> > > > >> jpms meta are to throw away cause we don't want to break the > > >>> model > > >>> > on > > >>> > > > one > > >>> > > > >> side and on another side it depends the consumer the way you > > >>> consume > > >>> > > it > > >>> > > > >> and > > >>> > > > >> dispatch the dependency on the classpath or module path. > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> Your solution is valid technically but does not solve the > > >>> original > > >>> > > > issue, > > >>> > > > >> it just moves it elsewhere IMHO. > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> This already works well today at the cost of being explicit > in > > >>> the > > >>> > > > plugins > > >>> > > > >> configs and with your proposal it will still work at the > same > > >>> cost > > >>> > > > (maybe > > >>> > > > >> reversed). > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> So ultimately I don't think it is a dep meta we need but > more > > a > > >>> > > wrapper > > >>> > > > on > > >>> > > > >> top of the resolver (the guess logic we have in plexus for > ex) > > >>> which > > >>> > > > >> should > > >>> > > > >> be easier to configure, maybe globally for the project and > > >>> > ultimately > > >>> > > > per > > >>> > > > >> plugin (think "configuration" in gradle world of maven > > >>> depencies set > > >>> > > in > > >>> > > > >> our > > >>> > > > >> world)....or we just don't do anything and ease the > dependency > > >>> > > > referencing > > >>> > > > >> (gav->path) to ease this explicit configuration - a bit like > > >>> > including > > >>> > > > >> dependencies:properties in core by default. > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > T > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >>> > > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 12:12, Tamás Cservenák < > > >>> > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > >>> > > > a > > >>> > > > >> > > écrit : > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > Given that jar (spring boot fatjar) is once this once > > >>> that, > > >>> > you > > >>> > > > >> refer > > >>> > > > >> > to > > >>> > > > >> > > it > > >>> > > > >> > > > in deps as needed: > > >>> > > > >> > > > in one module is fat:jar in other is fat:module, as > > >>> needed. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > You are the one explicitly telling what you want. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > In my example (and spring boot is not the only one, wars > > are > > >>> > > another > > >>> > > > >> > common > > >>> > > > >> > > one, or any java command more generally) the two modules > > >>> are a > > >>> > > > single > > >>> > > > >> > > one....and no doing two module would be worse than what > we > > >>> have > > >>> > > > today. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >>> > > > >> > > > T > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 8:42 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >>> > > > >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Interesting but common case: a module dep is a > module > > in > > >>> > > > >> compile/some > > >>> > > > >> > > > tests > > >>> > > > >> > > > > but not at runtime (spring boot fatjar). > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Back to explicit config in plugins and drop new > module > > >>> type? > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Le dim. 29 oct. 2023 à 07:46, Christoph Läubrich < > > >>> > > > >> > m...@laeubi-soft.de> > > >>> > > > >> > > a > > >>> > > > >> > > > > écrit : > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > And if now I could supply additional properties > from > > >>> the > > >>> > > > >> xml-model > > >>> > > > >> > > ... > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > Am 29.10.23 um 00:40 schrieb Tamás Cservenák: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > And finally this is hardly gonna happen in > Maven 3 > > >>> > > lifespan, > > >>> > > > >> as > > >>> > > > >> > > sadly > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > ArtifactHandler of it is quite limited: has only > > one > > >>> > flag: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L55 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > Sadly, Maven4 Type continued on this path, but > > >>> luckily > > >>> > we > > >>> > > > are > > >>> > > > >> in > > >>> > > > >> > > > alpha, > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > and > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > will propose a PR to type that currently looks > > like > > >>> > this: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java#L80 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > And would rework it to be more (if not same as) > > the > > >>> > > resolver > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > ArtifactType: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactType.java#L63 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > where properties are totally extensible, for > > example > > >>> > "add > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > >> > > > classpath" > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > is > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > really just one flag (added by ArifactType): > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/ArtifactProperties.java#L58 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > So, ArtifactProperties could be extended with > > >>> > > > >> > > > "constitutesModulePath", > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > "agent" and so on... To make this really > > extensible. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > In maven3 the ArtifactHandler this makes it > > >>> impossible. > > >>> > > > There > > >>> > > > >> is > > >>> > > > >> > > > still > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > hope > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > in Maven 4 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > T > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:32 AM Tamás > Cservenák < > > >>> > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> This would also mean, that if you have a > > dependency > > >>> > that > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > >> > > already > > >>> > > > >> > > > > JPMS > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> modularized (is java9+ and has module-info), > > then: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> a) if you declare it as type="jar" it means you > > >>> want to > > >>> > > put > > >>> > > > >> it > > >>> > > > >> > on > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> classpath (use it as "plain old jar") > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> b) if you declare it as type="module" it means > > you > > >>> want > > >>> > > it > > >>> > > > on > > >>> > > > >> > > > > modulepath > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> etc > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:30 AM Tamás > Cservenák > > < > > >>> > > > >> > > > ta...@cservenak.net > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Of course, the logic HOW and WHAT to make with > > >>> these > > >>> > > would > > >>> > > > >> be > > >>> > > > >> > > > needed > > >>> > > > >> > > > > to > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> be added to javadoc, compiler and all the > > plugins > > >>> that > > >>> > > > need > > >>> > > > >> to > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > distinguish. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> But this would stop any need for any > heuristic, > > >>> > > guesswork, > > >>> > > > >> > > > > smart-ness, > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> etc... > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> OTOH, if we introduce new packaging lifecycle > > >>> "module" > > >>> > > > (so a > > >>> > > > >> > > > project > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > that > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> builds module would do > > project/packaging=module), > > >>> it > > >>> > > could > > >>> > > > >> > nicely > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > enforce > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> things like: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - prevent non allowed packages > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - enforce presence of module-info.class (maybe > > >>> some > > >>> > > light > > >>> > > > >> > > > > verification) > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> - ensure project is Java9+ etc > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Most of this was somewhat done in Takari > > Lifecycle > > >>> > (also > > >>> > > > >> with > > >>> > > > >> > > > custom > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> packaging like "takari-jar" was). > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> T > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:26 AM Tamás > > Cservenák < > > >>> > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So, basically this is what am proposing: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/76f262538b5a11f6ee23d6d8c86f10ec > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Basically, Maven core (and hence plugins) > could > > >>> > > > distinguish > > >>> > > > >> > > among > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> different "types" of dependencies (while > would > > >>> all > > >>> > > still > > >>> > > > be > > >>> > > > >> > > plain > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > JARs). > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> So "jar" would be put on classpath, "module" > on > > >>> > module > > >>> > > > >> path, > > >>> > > > >> > > > "agent" > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> would got special treatment and so on. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Point is to _differentiate_. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> T > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:21 AM Tamás > > Cservenák > > >>> < > > >>> > > > >> > > > > ta...@cservenak.net > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Unsure from where you get that, but is wrong > > >>> > > conclusion. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> You can have dep1:jar, dep2:module, > dep3:agent > > >>> and > > >>> > > all 3 > > >>> > > > >> MAY > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> (ArtifactHandler dependent, assuming "jar", > > >>> "module" > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > >> > > "agent" > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > artifact > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> handlers all return extension=jar) refer to > > the > > >>> same > > >>> > > JAR > > >>> > > > >> file > > >>> > > > >> > > in > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > your local > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> repository. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Type merely adds "semantics" WHAT is it > about, > > >>> HOW > > >>> > to > > >>> > > > make > > >>> > > > >> > use > > >>> > > > >> > > of > > >>> > > > >> > > > > it. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Please see > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://maven.apache.org/repositories/artifacts.html#but-where-do-i-set-artifact-extension > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> T > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:17 AM Martin > > >>> > Desruisseaux < > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Le 2023-10-28 à 22 h 54, Tamás Cservenák a > > >>> écrit : > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> I still see these just as new dependency > > >>> types: > > >>> > > > >> "module", > > >>> > > > >> > > > > "agent", > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> "doclet", and so on. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Does "dependency type" means the <type> > > element > > >>> > > inside > > >>> > > > >> > > > > <dependency>? > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> If > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> yes, then specifying a different type > causes > > >>> Maven > > >>> > to > > >>> > > > >> > > download a > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> different JAR, without changing the kind of > > >>> path > > >>> > > (class > > >>> > > > >> path > > >>> > > > >> > > > > versus > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> module path) where the JAR is put. The > > proposed > > >>> > > <usage> > > >>> > > > >> > > element > > >>> > > > >> > > > > (or > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> whatever equivalent alternatives) has the > > >>> opposite > > >>> > > > >> semantic: > > >>> > > > >> > > it > > >>> > > > >> > > > > does > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> not > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> change the JAR to download, but put it on a > > >>> > different > > >>> > > > >> kind > > >>> > > > >> > of > > >>> > > > >> > > > > path. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Martin > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >>> > > > dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > >>> > > > >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >>> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > >>> > dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
