[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17749139#comment-17749139
]
Tamas Cservenak edited comment on MNG-7852 at 7/31/23 10:50 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are very wrong by putting statements like these, I'd really say this is
FUD. Maven chooses "nearest" version and is predictable and even reproducible.
And while blaming something else instead of yourself, due lack of knowledge
about it, is really in human nature, don't fall for it.
Also, you mix runtime and compile time things ("nobody ensure that people can
compile code"). Once you mention guava as runtime dependency, then you draw
conclusion about code compilation. You should do your homework: if you compile
against something, best practice is to declare it as direct dependency (and not
rely on some 3rd level transitive dependency). Tools like Takari Lifecycle even
ensure this: if you even touch a class that comes from any other dependency
than first level ones (those in POM), your build will fail.
So please, stop bombing JIRA, as am still by my original statement: "Best would
be to move this discussion to ML instead, preferably the users mailing list
https://maven.apache.org/mailing-lists.html";
was (Author: cstamas):
You are very wrong by putting statements like these, I'd really say this is
FUD. Maven chooses "nearest" version and is predictable and even reproducible.
And while blaming something else instead of yourself, due lack of knowledge
about it, is really in human nature, don't fall for it.
Also, you mix runtime and compile time things ("nobody ensure that people can
compile code"). Once you mention guava as runtime dependency, then you draw
conclusion about code compilation. You should do your homework: if you compile
against something, best practice is to declare it as direct dependency (and not
rely on some 3rd level transitive dependency). Tools like Takari Lifecycle even
ensure this: if you even touch a class that comes from any other dependency
that first level ones (those in POM), your build will fail.
So please, stop bombing JIRA, as am still by my original statement: "Best would
be to move this discussion to ML instead, preferably the users mailing list
https://maven.apache.org/mailing-lists.html";
> Use all the versions for dependency resolution rather than "nearest first" or
> "declared first"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MNG-7852
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7852
> Project: Maven
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Dependencies
> Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently, Maven uses "nearest first", "declared first" rules for conflict
> resolution:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html
> I suggest those rules are removed since they produce hard to reason
> resolutions for transitive dependencies.
> Below I list reasons why both "nearest wins" and "declared first" yield
> hard-to-predict behaviours, and they are likely to produce dependency
> downgrades and the associated runtime errors.
> Here are some examples:
> 1) "Nearest first". Even though the rule sounds easy, it is not something the
> users can control. For instance, if the project does not use Guava library,
> some of the transitive dependencies could add a dependency on Guava. The user
> has no control which dependency would be "the nearest" to declare Guava, so
> user has literally no way to tell which Guava version will be used.
> The only workaround I see for the users is to declare Guava dependency
> explicitly even though the project does not need it directly. It sounds like
> Maven requires users to re-declare all the possible dependencies, including
> the runtime-only ones.
> 2) "declared first". Of course, dependency order matters for classpath order,
> however, it is not predictable in practice, and it might result in
> downgrading dependencies. Imagine the project does not use Guice. However,
> transitive dependencies might use Guice. At the same time, they might start
> using Guice and stop using Guice, so the user can never tell which will be
> the first project that uses Guice. Unfortunately, in Maven, the first project
> that declares dependency wins, so it might easily be the case that the first
> mention of Guice will reference outdated version that would be incompatible
> with the newer one required in another dependency.
> 3) Here's a real-life case: Maven downgrades protobuf-java dependency causing
> something like NoSuchMethodError at the runtime. The step to reproduce is to
> add dependency on dev.sigstore:sigstore-java:0.4.0. See [~hboutemy] analysis
> in https://github.com/hboutemy/sigstore-maven-plugin/blob/import/analysis.md
> Long story short, sigstore-java does not depend on protobuf-java directly,
> however, sigstore-java depends on several third-party libraries that
> eventually depend on protobuf-java. Maven's "the first wins" behaviour
> results in incoherent set of protobuf dependencies on the classpath.
> 4) see "unexpected" in MNG-5988
> To my best understanding, when it comes to transitive dependencies, both
> "nearest first" and "declared first" are random variables which user can't
> control unless they re-declare all the dependencies in their local pom. I
> suggest Maven should not use random variables like "dependency depth" or
> "dependency order" to drive conflict resolution.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
