So, just for fun, I used MIMA /w local mods (MIMA is vanilla mvn39 models + resolver1) to resolve one of my demo modules: (neglect the root type of "dinosaur"...Also, this is really simplified, _resolving_ this graph would FAIL, as MIMA has no idea what "module" type is, as can be seen in GAVs, where extension="module"=type) https://gist.github.com/cstamas/79f9a01d661209fe302ba92b0de9ab69
It shows how even pure resolver 1.x behaves, just check the tree for "annotation-processor" and "module" types, everything is there. Basically, even though resolver1 API is able to express these things, the problem is that the Maven3 API is not (ArtifactHandler). T On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 10:43 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > Well, I have to disagree... > > Maven Core has no idea what "add to classpath" means, and the flag is not > even used in core. Same would stand for MP etc. > Maven Core (simplified: the POM) tells WHAT IT IS only. > > Maven Plugin is the one who uses the core provided information to process > things. So Plugin should know HOW TO USE IT. > > This is an important distinction in Maven, as otherwise plugin logic would > creep into core (like it did with site in Maven2) or other way around... > > Basically, IMO types are good as it is, as you describe what it is (or > what you think it is), and plugin by using APIs (and yes, maybe some > "hints" from config) should be able to deduce how to make use of those > things. > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 10:35 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, this is the part I find broken in maven design (even mvn3) 1nd hope >> we >> stop abusing. >> Also note it keeps the flag per maven module whereas we have a need per >> plugin. >> So first step is to fix plugin config to get them filters of artifacts per >> their "paths" and sounds like it will be sufficient, no? >> Type would just make some non sufficient (maybe convenient, im not >> convinced from my XP but will not fight on this) default and transitive >> issues but sounds like solething to do some years after the plugin config >> fix. >> >> Do we want to normalize the way to filter maven module artifacts in plugin >> configs? >> >> Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 10:25, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a >> écrit : >> >> > So, just to explain w/ code: >> > In Maven3 ArtifactHandler (type=id selects a handler) looks like this: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/maven-3.9.x/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/handler/ArtifactHandler.java#L55 >> > >> > And you can spot the two boolean "lfags": addedToClasspath (CP) and >> > includesDependencies (ID). >> > >> > Maven4 master corresponding Type looks like this: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java#L80 >> > >> > Same two boolean flags. >> > >> > In my PoC PR this is generalized: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/cstamas/maven/blob/module-experiment/api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/Type.java >> > >> > === >> > >> > In mvn3 realm (mvn3 plugin) here is an example how an artifact lands on >> CP: >> > the flag is checked >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/maven-surefire-common/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/surefire/TestClassPath.java#L63 >> > >> > And from that point on, starts the "guesswork" (is it a module maybe?) >> > >> > A mvn4 plugin could make much fine-grainer checks (CP, MP etc). My idea >> was >> > really just to make things _explicit_. >> > >> > Thanks >> > T >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 9:58 AM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Well, even mvn3 works like it today, except it has "fixed set" of >> flags. >> > > All i did is opened up the number of possible flags, added MP (next to >> > > existing CP flag from mvn 3). Types were really eztensible in mvn3 as >> > well, >> > > but less expressive with fixed set of flags. >> > > >> > > Basically even in mvn3, an artifact lands on CP if it has CP flag >> set... >> > > No radical change in this area. >> > > >> > > T >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, 08:49 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Doesnt it mean you dont need type at all. >> > >> I understand the idea to add new method in the handler but this is >> > really >> > >> a >> > >> weird design and still blocked by the predefined set so user is still >> > >> locked by design so not sure how it helps to rely on type. >> > >> >> > >> Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 21:44, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a >> > >> écrit : >> > >> >> > >> > Just 5 cents: >> > >> > >> > >> > Plugins (as "consumer of dependency") would NOT handle with type >> > >> > _directlty_, but the _flags_. >> > >> > >> > >> > So, if you look at this table (a bit outdated): >> > >> > https://gist.github.com/cstamas/4e9bcbef25ce912a90ad1e127b0c5db8 >> > >> > >> > >> > m-compiler-p: handles artifacts flagged with CP, MP, AP >> > >> > m-javadoc-p: handles artifacts flagged with DOC >> > >> > and so on (just roughly to explain the idea). >> > >> > >> > >> > And nothing stops you to declare as many types as many needed (to >> > >> describe >> > >> > what you want), the plugins will go for flags only. >> > >> > >> > >> > So in short: plugins will not go for type, the go for flags >> defined by >> > >> > types (and many type can use same flag) >> > >> > >> > >> > T >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 9:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Le ven. 3 nov. 2023 à 20:55, Martin Desruisseaux < >> > >> > > martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit : >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Le 2023-11-03 à 19 h 33, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> putting a dependency on the module-path of a non-JPMS >> > application >> > >> > > > >> such as Spring is okay >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > > Is not ok for me and is a big hidden bug of current guess >> logic >> > >> when >> > >> > > > > not disabled IMHO, we should drop all that guess code >> probably. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > The current guess code in Maven 3 puts the dependency on the >> > >> > class-path, >> > >> > > > which in my understanding is the behaviour that you want. The >> > <type> >> > >> > > > proposal would put the dependency on whatever path the <type> >> said >> > >> it >> > >> > > > should be. If the user is not okay with that, (s)he can >> override >> > in >> > >> the >> > >> > > > same way that (s)he can override the version of transitive >> > >> > dependencies. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Means you create as much type as plugin*pathTypePerPlugin, looks >> > >> > overkill. >> > >> > > And just using class/module paths does not work, so ultimately >> > plugins >> > >> > will >> > >> > > need filters and maybe just rely on scopes+filters - still >> trying to >> > >> > find a >> > >> > > solution making eveyone happy. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > A dependency may be designed for working only on the module >> path >> > >> (it is >> > >> > > > developer's choice as any other software requirement, such as >> the >> > >> > > > minimal Java version), which is why I think that by default, >> > >> dependency >> > >> > > > should go where the library producer said that it should go. >> But >> > >> again, >> > >> > > > users can override if they want. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Then question is how do you enable modules but this is not a >> > >> question >> > >> > > > > for your maven module but per plugin (jaxws plugin will not >> use >> > >> the >> > >> > > > > same modules than compiler nor javadoc for ex). This is where >> > the >> > >> > type >> > >> > > > > proposal is not granular enough to handle advanced cases we >> are >> > >> > > > > talking about >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Are you referring to the --add-modules or --limit-modules >> options >> > of >> > >> > > > Java? If so, I think that they are compatible with the <type> >> > >> proposal >> > >> > > > and can be discussed in a next step. The first step that we are >> > >> trying >> > >> > > > to resolve now is to build the module-path. Next, it is indeed >> > >> possible >> > >> > > > to tell Java to "see" only a subset of the modules available on >> > the >> > >> > > > module-path. I think that this option is more typically used >> when >> > >> the >> > >> > > > module-path is a whole directory instead than an enumeration of >> > >> > > > dependencies as Maven does. If users nevertheless want to use >> the >> > >> > > > --add-modules or --limit-modules options, maybe they could be >> > >> options >> > >> > of >> > >> > > > the exec plugin. Those options are not paths, only >> comma-separated >> > >> > lists >> > >> > > > of modules names. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Yes, but you just added a jaxws type to maven core - see why this >> > does >> > >> > not >> > >> > > scale/work? >> > >> > > Just means we cant get external plugins anymore or we will >> > duplicate a >> > >> > lot >> > >> > > deps (same gav different type...please no). >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > (…snip…) ie put all the code in src/main cause by design it >> is >> > >> what >> > >> > > > > you want, a single module where maven creates 2 modules per >> > maven >> > >> > > module >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I'm not sure if you are talking about the Java compiler's >> "Module >> > >> > Source >> > >> > > > Hierarchy" here. If yes, this is indeed something that I would >> > like, >> > >> > but >> > >> > > > I'm not trying to push that for Maven (I presume that it would >> be >> > a >> > >> too >> > >> > > > big change). My hope for Maven has smaller scope: module-path >> and >> > >> > making >> > >> > > > easier to setup the --add-exports and --add-opens options. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > This already works with maven, needs to tune the folder layouts >> and >> > a >> > >> few >> > >> > > plugins - and to be honest I hope it never becomes the default, >> so >> > not >> > >> > sure >> > >> > > what misses there. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > Not sure I understand the issue, you highlight a bug in exec >> > maven >> > >> > > > > plugin (classpath and module path configuration share a >> single >> > >> toggle >> > >> > > > > - and toString BTW) but ultimately you misconfigured the >> plugin >> > >> too: >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks for the configuration tip, but it works by setting the >> > >> > > > --class-path and --module-path options in the <arguments> >> block of >> > >> the >> > >> > > > exec-maven-plugin. My issue was also execution with surefire, >> > >> javadoc, >> > >> > > > etc. All plugins need the same configuration. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > It is the same there, nothing relates to depency type (which is >> my >> > >> > point). >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > it is really about getting split paths more easily than >> getting >> > a >> > >> > > > > global for the maven module configuration which will prevent >> you >> > >> to >> > >> > > > > configure accurately each plugin which is actually required >> for >> > >> these >> > >> > > > > advanced JPMS cases (jaxws is really a hurting case). >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Global configuration is also desirable. Per-plugin tuning may >> also >> > >> be >> > >> > > > desirable, but there is good chances that they would be >> > >> modifications >> > >> > of >> > >> > > > the global configuration instead of something independent >> > (providing >> > >> > > > that the global configuration has the <type> proposal). >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I see a lot of overlap but no 1-1 cases except on simple >> projects. >> > >> > > Compiler != Surefire != Javadoc for ex, this is why type looks >> very >> > >> > > limiting until combinable or each plugin has filter capability >> which >> > >> also >> > >> > > mean type is useless. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Agree, default should stay classpath and module path >> shouldn't >> > be >> > >> > > > > enabled until requested, creates too much weird behaviors >> IMHO. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Weird behaviour happens when the library is not on the path it >> was >> > >> > > > designed for. Weird behaviour if we put a >> designed-for-class-path >> > >> > > > dependency on the module-path, and potentially broken >> behaviour if >> > >> we >> > >> > > > put a designed-for-module-path dependency on the class-path. >> The >> > >> reason >> > >> > > > why we do not observe the latter often is because library >> > producers >> > >> are >> > >> > > > aware that the Java world is still a lot class-path centric, >> and >> > >> > > > provides workaround in their library for making execution on >> > >> class-path >> > >> > > > possible. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Exactly! >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Martin >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
