Just trying to close the thread... 1) Yes, transitive dependencies of a war are ignored 2) Yes, this is on purpose 3) No, this isn't going to change 4) You can try fiddling with components.xml, but other stuff might break (see #2 above)
On 5/26/10 10:02 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > In theory yes but then be prepared for unexpected results. > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 5/26/10 9:47 AM, Brian Fox wrote: >>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Stephen Connolly >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 26 May 2010 01:02, leonfranzen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For now, my plan is to : >>>>> 1. Build the DependencyNode tree with the maven DependencyTreeBuilder for >>>>> the top-level POM >>>>> 2. Traverse the tree and find each war Node >>>>> 3. Serialize the node tree to disk >>>>> 4. Separately run the dependency node serializer on each of the war >>>>> projects >>>>> found in step 2. >>>>> 5. Deserialize all of the separate trees and assemble an aggregate >>>>> dependency node tree. >>>>> >>>>> I'll wait to see if I'm missing some sort of filter configuration that's >>>>> simply chucking out war dependency results, but I have a suspicion that >>>>> Maven just doesn't resolve transitive war dependencies and that it would >>>>> >>>> >>>> There is a components.xml that defines the war packaging. in that >>>> components.xml it says that war is not a classpath dependency type (which >>>> is >>>> correct because war files usually contain their dependencies), so the net >>>> result is that when you build the classpath from the list of dependencies, >>>> the transitive deps of war files will be ignored by design. But AFAIK >>>> dependency:tree will show those deps >>>> >>> >>> It won't because it's relying on the core resolution to build the >>> tree. Your paragraph above is otherwise exactly on the money. Maven is >>> told not to resolve war dependencies transitively. >> So theoretically, couldn't the OP crack open the uber jar, modify >> components.xml, repackage it, and then run dependency:tree? >> >> To be clear... any support email to the mailing list that begins "I >> created my own uber jar by modifying components.xml" is probably not >> going to get a lot of (helpful) feedback. >> >> Justin >> >>> >>>> >>>>> take a lot of work to make it do so. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://old.nabble.com/Dependency-analysis-through-wars-tp28672012p28674916.html >>>>> Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
