Mark I think some of the assertions on the prevalence of the pom.properties is wrong. We pulled our own top 20 list based on download popularity and you can see it lines up well with your cited article:
count | group_name | artifact_name ---------+----------------------------+--------------------- 9620458 | junit | junit 7660971 | org.slf4j | slf4j-api 5608458 | log4j | log4j 5542626 | commons-codec | commons-codec 5389851 | com.google.guava | guava 5357355 | commons-io | commons-io 5177092 | commons-logging | commons-logging 4936300 | org.apache.httpcomponents | httpclient 4874902 | org.apache.httpcomponents | httpcore 4756847 | commons-cli | commons-cli 4577052 | org.apache.commons | commons-lang3 4508856 | commons-lang | commons-lang 4430776 | com.fasterxml.jackson.core | jackson-core 4280673 | com.fasterxml.jackson.core | jackson-databind 4270501 | com.google.code.findbugs | jsr305 4140850 | com.fasterxml.jackson.core | jackson-annotations 3860911 | org.slf4j | jcl-over-slf4j 3410877 | org.springframework | spring-core 3062759 | org.springframework | spring-beans 2989047 | classworlds | classworlds However, only junit and the 2 spring modules are missing a pom.properties. The assertion that less than half the popular components don't have it seems provably incorrect. All the popular stuff is in Maven Central and again, 94% is a huge number, saying it doesn't cover much is just inaccurate. On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:35 PM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: > Thanks for the continued feedback on this difficult issue. > > FYI: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/ > 2017-April/000666.html > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/ > 2017-April/000667.html > > - Mark >
