I'm talking about:
<!-- https://osgi.org/javadoc/r6/annotation/ -->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.osgi</groupId>
<artifactId>org.osgi.annotation.versioning</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
<scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>
<!--
https://osgi.org/javadoc/r6/cmpn/org/osgi/service/component/annotations/package-summary.html
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.osgi</groupId>
<artifactId>org.osgi.service.component.annotations</artifactId>
<version>1.3.0</version>
<scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>
<!--
https://osgi.org/javadoc/r6/cmpn/org/osgi/service/metatype/annotations/package-summary.html
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.osgi</groupId>
<artifactId>org.osgi.service.metatype.annotations</artifactId>
<version>1.3.0</version>
<scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>
Sure, it's a one time effort, but for 100++ modules
Carsten
Konrad Windszus wrote
> @Carsten:
> Which dependency exactly to you want to declare now? The aggregate one for
> annotations or the individual ones per annotation definition?
>
> But I rather tend to agree with Oli here. We should really force every
> project to declare all(!) its dependencies. Having a dirty classpath for
> non-OSGi modules just because you derive from parent does not seem right to
> me.
> This should be a one time effort (given that OSGi does not rename the
> artifacts again in the future).
>
> Konrad
>
>> On 26. Feb 2018, at 12:44, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, how many non OSGi modules do we have? I totally agree that it's
>> better to not declare dependencies in the parent pom. But every rule has
>> an exception, and I think the annotations (not the api) are an exception.
>>
>> Upgrading to the new parent pom is now really a pain.
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>>
>> Oliver Lietz wrote
>>> On Monday 26 February 2018 12:15:16 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Hi Carsten,
>>>
>>>> it seems that updating to parent pom 33 is way harder than it should be.
>>>> For an unknown reason the OSGi annotations are no longer declared as
>>>> dependencies, requiring now each and every project to define
>>>> them...which I think is really annoying.
>>>>
>>>> The change in question is referencing SLING-7384, but I can't find a
>>>> discussion nor reason in there. So why has this been done?
>>>
>>> in my opinion dependencies should only be managed in parent and not
>>> declared.
>>> We have several modules which are "not OSGi" and they inherit those
>>> dependencies although not used at all.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> O.
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Carsten
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>> [email protected]
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
[email protected]
