On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the hints syntax under dependencies. (Even I'm not sure hints > is the right word). Maybe an english speaker could help clarify this? > I agree with Jim. We must have the possibility to centraly manage > your 'hints'. Typically in a multi-module product, the 'hints' will > be a global charachteristic of the product, and only occasionaly > something specific to a module. > > So, I think that allowing to include a file like we can include a file > for the configurations would be a good solution. Like Xavier, I'm not > in favor of adding this to the settings. > > However, when published, the included files must be in-lined so that > the published files are self-containing. Agreed. I think we already have an open issue for the support of file inclusion. > > > Finally, I'm currious to see how the new feature will impact the build > traces and the dependency report. ATM dependency overriding is only traced in verbose mode. All other traces and report are displayed as if the dependency was declared with the overriding value. I'll try to see if I can improve that. Xavier > > > Gilles > > > On 24/03/2008, Jim Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any way to include this from another file? What I am thinking > of is that we have a properties file filled with the default versions of > third party dependencies that our build wants to use. We have different > build tracks, corresponding to different installable portions of our system, > where people may decide that they want to override the original third party > dependencies. It seems that this would be possible with this system. I am > concerned that I will end up with conflicts, however, and not know it nor > really understand the implications of these conflicts. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:31 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: specify versions separate from dependencies > > > > > > > > I've started working on this, and come close to a solution. To > finalize my > > > work, we need to decide upon the syntax we want to use in Ivy files > to > > > support transitive dependency override mechanism. > > > > > > After some more thoughts on the feature and how it relates to > existing Ivy > > > features, I think we now have 3 different ways to influence > transitive > > > dependencies in an Ivy file: > > > - transitive dependency exclusion (IVY-431), introduced in > 2.0.0-alpha1. > > > This feature relies on an 'exclude' tag directly under the > 'dependencies' > > > element. > > > - setting specific conflict managers for transitive dependencies. > This > > > relies on a 'conflicts' element and its child elements 'manager'. > > > - overriding version and/or branch of transitive dependencies. In the > > > implementation, I've opened the door to more feature than that, by > > > implementing a dependency descriptor mediator mechanism. Whenever we > load a > > > module descriptor dependency descriptors to resolve them, we first > ask all > > > the dependers to mediate each dependency descriptor. Then we use the > > > mediated dependency descriptor to resolve the dependency, instead of > the > > > original one. For the moment I've only implemented one mediator, > called > > > override. But we could later imagine other kinds of mediation which > happens > > > before actual dependency resolution. For the moment I've used this > syntax > > > for this new feature: > > > <engine-hints> > > > <mediation> > > > <override org="yourorg" module=".*1" matcher="regexp" > > > branch="BRANCH" rev="1.0" /> > > > </mediation> > > > </engine-hints> > > > This section is put directly under ivy-module element. What I would > like to > > > do is group the three kind of transitive dependencies hints we can > give to > > > the resolve engine in an ivy file. I'm still wondering what is the > best > > > syntax, and if we can afford deprecating the syntax of conflicts and > module > > > wide exclude. If we agree to deprecate them, here's one idea for the > new > > > syntax: > > > <ivy-module> > > > <dependencies> > > > <dependency ... /> > > > <dependency ... /> > > > ... > > > <hints> > > > <exclude org="" module="" matcher="" ... /> > > > <conflict org="" module="" matcher="" rev|manager="" /> > > > <override org="" module="" matcher="" branch="" rev="" /> > > > </hints> > > > </dependencies> > > > </ivy-module> > > > The conflict tag is similar to the current conflicts/manager tag, > except > > > that the 'name' attribute is replaced by 'manager'. > > > All three kind of hints share the same attribute triple (org - module > - > > > matcher). The usage of this uple is slightly different in exclude, > where it > > > also applied to other attributes, such as artifact (to name the > artifacts to > > > exclude transitively). > > > > > > Another approach would be to put the hints section directly under > ivy-module > > > instead of under dependencies (as it's the case for conflicts/manager > > > today). I think I prefer the former approach I propose. > > > > > > This is open to discussion, please give your feedback, once 2.0 will > be out > > > we won't be able to go back. > > > > > > Xavier > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Harald Braumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:23:50 +0100 > > > > "Xavier Hanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Could you open an issue about that? > > > > > > > > Here it is: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-753 > > > > > > > > harry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant > > > http://xhab.blogspot.com/ > > > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ > > > http://www.xoocode.org/ > > > > > -- > Gilles Scokart > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant http://xhab.blogspot.com/ http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ http://www.xoocode.org/
