On 02/12/2008, at 8:38 AM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:

It's hard to reply to a particular phrase in this thread, so I will write a generic paragraph or two to add to Shane's comment.

Mercury was written without Maven dependencies - it exposes DependencyProcessor interface and relies on the injected implementation to supply dependencies - being it property file or a hierarchy of POMs. Later on - when it came to testing M2 repository implementations, I wrote a primitive POM reader that is fine for artificially simple POMs, but that was not good testing and that is why ITs pulled in the maven-mercury project as a dependency for reading POMs.

My normal thought here would be that the ITs are in the wrong place. If they are testing the integration between maven-mercury and the rest of mercury they probably belong where maven-mercury (so, in Maven's Core ITs at the moment). If they are testing the integration of the various Mercury components in it's trunk then the current place makes sense without the dep on maven-mercury.

So, I'd consider moving them, but if that's inconvenient they can probably stay where they are until things stabilise. ISTR the IT's wouldn't be part of the release anyway.



Then we implemented a plexus component to wrap Mercury, and it became apparent that calling M2 repository and configuring it with a maven-mercury POM reader is - well - not natural. I doubt we'll have another implementation of POM reader, so it is natural for M2 repo to use maven-mercury inside, not asking client for an implementation.

This is just a test dependency and would think that it doesn't need to be there. If the unit tests rely on a particular implementation they are probably over-reaching.

I agreed with everything Shane said, and I think it's a clear indication the current structure is the best for now.

Thanks,
Brett

--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to