I share Alexandre's opinion. Having the code in a separate module would avoid having to deal with optional dependencies and exclusions.
Cheers, -- Richard On 19.09.2014, at 04:57, Alexandre Patry <[email protected]> wrote: > To my knowledge, the easiest way to make a dependency optional is to put the > code depending on it in a separate module. > > A compromise is to make the jackson dependency optional (see > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html). > This will require jackson to build the project, but it will not include it > in the transitional dependencies of uimaj. People needing JSON support will > have to declare the jackson dependency explicitly. > > Personally, I would prefer a separate module. > > Hope this help, > > Alexandre > > > On 14-09-18 05:06 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: >> The Jackson Jars are not needed (in the binary distribution), if you do not >> want >> the JSON support. So this may not be an issue for consumers of UIMA - they >> could just delete the Jackson Jar if they don't need it, from our >> "convenience" >> binary packaging (I would hope we wouldn't need to provide 2 binary packages >> - >> one with and one without...) >> >> But I see a possible issue for developers, etc. building from source using >> Eclipse or Maven; I agree it would be good to allow builds to succeed with >> and >> without the Jackson jars, with the "without" case of course not running the >> JSON >> test cases. >> >> Anyone know how to make that happen? I hope someone can think up a nice >> approach :-) >> >> -Marshall >> >> On 9/18/2014 11:52 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have noticed that the new JSON support also introduces a new dependency >>> on jackson in uimaj-core. >>> I wonder if that is a good idea since our users might need to get extra >>> permission from their legal >>> departments to use the new library when they want to upgrade. Would it be >>> reasonable to maintain >>> the JSON support in a separate module? Given the kind of very deep >>> integration that the JSON >>> support appears to have, this might not even be easily possible. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- Richard > > -- > Alexandre Patry, Ph.D > Chercheur / Researcher > http://KeaText.com
