On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Harald Braumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:41:43 +0100
> "Xavier Hanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Harald Braumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:50:43 +0100
> > > "Xavier Hanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW, I think that changing the dependency resolution algorithm in
> > > > a 2.0.xrelease is pretty strange. This can easily break builds,
> > > > which I wouldn't
> > > > suspect when upgrading on a 2.0.x stream.
> > > Well, you're not alone there.
> > >
> > > > > Maybe similar to a virtual module? It could then be specified by
> > > > > org/name/etc. just like dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by similar to a virtual module? Virtual module in
> > > > Ivy has a specific sense: it's a module which doesn't publish any
> > > > artifact. But maybe you're not referencing to this concept.
> > >
> > > I am. I just wanted to suggest that it shouldn't be a settings file
> > > but something like a module file.
> > >
> > > > Personnally I was just thinking about something very similar to
> > > > maven dependency management feature, with slight adaptation to
> > > > Ivy syntax.
> > > >
> > > > Something like:
> > > > <ivy-module version="2.0">
> > > > <info ... />
> > > > <dependencies>
> > > > </dependencies>
> > > > <dependencyManagement>
> > > > <dependency org="foo" name="bar" rev="1.0" />
> > > > </dependencyManagement>
> > > > </ivy-module>
> > >
> > > So in this case foo-bar-1.0 could actually be a virtual module, but
> > > as it is specified under dependencyManagement, it wouldn't pull in
> > > the dependencies but just override the versions.
> >
> > I'm not sure of what you mean. foo#bar is module, on which we suppose
> > the module defined with the ivy.xml define above depends indirectly.
> > Let's suppose we have foo#baz;2.0 -> foo#bar;1.0.1. With this ivy.xml:
> > <ivy-module version="2.0">
> > <info organisation="acme" name="mymodule" />
> > <dependencies>
> > <dependency org="foo" name="baz" rev="2.0" />
> > </dependencies>
> > <dependencyManagement>
> > <dependency org="foo" name="bar" rev="1.0" />
> > </dependencyManagement>
> > </ivy-module>
> >
> > Ivy would resolve the dependency closure as: { foo#baz;2.0 ,
> > foo#bar;1.0 } instead of { foo#baz;2.0 , foo#bar;1.0.1 }, because of
> > the dependencyManagement section. This is very similar to how Maven
> > handle this, right?
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood you before. You put the overrides in the ivy
> file directly. In this case you're right, of course. I thought of
> foo#bar more like the parent pom in maven nomenclature.
>
> In your proposal it would be nice, if dependencyManagement would be
> resolved recursively. This would help multi-module projects, where you
> want to define versions centrally in a single file. You could then
> specify a module without publications (thus I thought of a virtual
> module) and with only a dependencyMangement section. Like so:
>
> <ivy-module version="2.0">
> <info organisation="acme" name="myproject" />
> <dependencies>
> </dependencies>
> <dependencyManagement>
> <dependency org="foo" name="bar" rev="1.0" />
> <dependency org="foo" name="baz" rev="1.0" />
> </dependencyManagement>
> </ivy-module>
>
> <ivy-module version="2.0">
> <info organisation="acme" name="mymodule1" />
> <dependencies>
> ...
> </dependencies>
> <dependencyManagement>
> <dependency org="acme" name="myproject" rev="latest.integration" />
> </dependencyManagement>
> </ivy-module>
>
> <ivy-module version="2.0">
> <info organisation="acme" name="mymodule2" />
> <dependencies>
> ...
> </dependencies>
> <dependencyManagement>
> <dependency org="acme" name="myproject" rev="latest.integration" />
> </dependencyManagement>
> </ivy-module>
>
> And thus both, mymodule1 and mymodule2, would use the same versions of
> foo#bar and foo#baz.
I'm not sure to follow you. In acme#myproject, the dependencyManagement
section is used to override dependencies, ok. But then in acme#mymodule(1|2)
it's used (with the same syntax) as a kind of import or include mechanism,
right? How do we distinguish between the two?
Xavier
>
>
> harry
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/
