On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > Vincent Massol wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> >>> Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> So far we've used the strategy of using a "xwiki" classifier when >>>> we >>>> mad changes to artifacts or their poms (we actually forgot to do >>>> that >>>> for some but that's another story...). The problem is that >>>> classifier >>>> don't work since: >>>> * there's a single pom file for all classifiers >>>> * the pom is retrieved before the artifact >>>> * if there's another remote repo before the xwiki repo and that pom >>>> file exists in this other remote repo it'll be used instead of ours >>>> >>>> For the record we had 2 problems with jfreechart and jackrabbit >>>> which >>>> caused this issue to appear. >>>> >>>> Solution: >>>> >>>> I propose to publish modified artifacts (the artifact itself of its >>>> pom) into our own groupId (best practice) and I propose to prefix >>>> them >>>> with "xwiki.". >>>> >>>> For example for "org.apache.jackrabbit" that would become >>>> "xwiki.org.apache.jackrabbit". >>>> >>>> I've done that for jfreechart and jackrabbit here: >>>> http://maven.xwiki.org/externals/xwiki/ >>>> >>> I don't like changing the group Id. I know that using a classifier >>> doesn't work, but we can use a keyword in the version >>> (<version>1.0-xwiki</version>). This should work, and it prevents >>> duplicate jars. For example, if we package a dependency that is also >>> used by another transitively, we'd have to manually exclude it. >> >> That was the other option but I consulted withe maven gurus before >> proposing the groupId. As I mentioned this is the best practice in >> the >> maven community it seems. When you modify an artifact it becomes >> yours >> and the groupId is the way to signal an artifact is yours. > > Well, I agree somehow with the part that changing an artifact means > that > it no longer belongs to the original group. However, the main > problem is > that you always have to be careful to exclude the original artifact > from > transitive dependencies,
Good point. I've discussed it again on the maven irc channel and we agreed that it's slightly better to do this: 1) use a version suffix 2) use a dependencyManagement section to ensure our version is picked. Otherwise even if you change a version from 1.0 to 1.0-xwiki you might still need to exclude the 1.0 version if that's used somewhere else. Actually when comparing versions maven will think 1.0-xwiki is older than 1.0... So I'm changing my proposal to use a suffixed version instead of a different groupid. Thanks -Vincent > at least until > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1977 is fixed. And I also think > that > minor changes are not that important to be considered a different > artifact. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
