On Monday 26 February 2018 13:52:56 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Again, I totally agree for *normal* dependencies and again, I'm not > talking about those. I'm talking about the annotations only - which are > separate artifacts anyway.
I see your point. O. > Carsten > > > Oliver Lietz wrote > > > On Monday 26 February 2018 12:51:14 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). > > > > And here is the example for dirty classpath: > > > > https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-jcr-contentloader/blob/ma > > ster/pom.xml#L113 > > > > This is *NOT* a problem of Pax Exam. > > > > Regards, > > O. > > > >> 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
