Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
No, this is not a must... You can link either way if you want, but there's several things you have to consider: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Aaron Zeckoski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Research Engineer - CARET - Cambridge University [http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/~aaronz/] Sakai Fellow - [http://aaronz-sakai.blogspot.com/]
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove the 'modules'-part in your base-POM... Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency. On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute? This shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here? say you've just checked out a fresh project tree from svn - it's not yet been released to any remote repository, and you have a clean local repository. if you went to a sub-folder and tried mvn install it would complain about not finding the parent POM (because it's not the same as the containing .. POM) the relativePath attribute tells Maven where to find the POM if it can't find it in the local or remote repositories - note that if the parent is the same as the containing POM then you shouldn't need to use relativePath http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html#Example_2 HTH On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote: On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove the 'modules'-part in your base-POM... Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency. also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM (ie. the one with the modules) for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement, pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory) and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings. ie: pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B) \__ poms / pom.xml \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a single tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different parent, and they won't disturb each other. the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds can work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for this) On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xmlSample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.:
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute? This shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here? On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote: On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove the 'modules'-part in your base-POM... Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency. also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM (ie. the one with the modules) for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement, pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory) and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings. ie: pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B) \__ poms / pom.xml \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a single tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different parent, and they won't disturb each other. the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds can work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for this) On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f,
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove the 'modules'-part in your base-POM... Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency. also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM (ie. the one with the modules) for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement, pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory) and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings. ie: pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B) | \__ poms / pom.xml | \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) | \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a single tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different parent, and they won't disturb each other. the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds can work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for this) On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Roland Asmann CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7 A-1010 Wien FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27 Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.cfc.at - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cheers, Stuart
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Understood, but if you have dependencies to you sibling-modules, you'd have the same problem... So, I'd personally always build from the root-project after a fresh check-out... And from then on it wouldn't be necessary to use the relativePath. Still, I understand your reasoning and I agree it's probably the best solution in your scenario. On Thursday 15 November 2007 15:25, Stuart McCulloch wrote: On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute? This shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here? say you've just checked out a fresh project tree from svn - it's not yet been released to any remote repository, and you have a clean local repository. if you went to a sub-folder and tried mvn install it would complain about not finding the parent POM (because it's not the same as the containing .. POM) the relativePath attribute tells Maven where to find the POM if it can't find it in the local or remote repositories - note that if the parent is the same as the containing POM then you shouldn't need to use relativePath http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html#Ex ample_2 HTH On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote: On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove the 'modules'-part in your base-POM... Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency. also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM (ie. the one with the modules) for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement, pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory) and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings. ie: pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B) \__ poms / pom.xml \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms) this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a single tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different parent, and they won't disturb each other. the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds can work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for this) On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the children DO NOT get build. Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven book). In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of properties and shared dependencies. I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling in maven 2 though. I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me. :-) -AZ Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if I recall correctly... On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote: Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs
2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have: The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so: ... groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId artifactIdbase/artifactId packagingpom/packaging ... modules modulealias/module /modules ... Then the child defines a parent like so: ... parent artifactIdbase/artifactId groupIdorg.sakaiproject/groupId versionM2/version relativePath../pom.xml/relativePath /parent ... As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to know about each other. This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are we doing something dumb here? Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml Thanks for the help! -AZ -- Aaron Zeckoski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Research Engineer - CARET - Cambridge University [http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/~aaronz/] Sakai Fellow - [http://aaronz-sakai.blogspot.com/] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
