Correct, what I am looking for is Maven to tell me there is a version conflict.


On 13-4-2011 14:22, Benson Margulies wrote:
Adam, it might not be *his code*. He writes something that uses the
newest, spiffiest, version of component X. Then he adds a dependency
on component Y. And, buried in the transitive dependency graph of Y is
an ancient version of X.

Yes, of course, we could tell him to use OSGi and all buy shares in
companies selling perm gen space.

The point here is not to try to make these cases *work*, it is to
diagnose, since in the worst case the failure modes are complex and
confusing.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Adam Gibbons<adam.s.gibb...@gmail.com>  wrote:
crazy idea, but why don't you just refactor the code that only works with
v1.0 to work with v2.0? it might be better anyway...



On 13 April 2011 13:15, Benson Margulies<bimargul...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Jörg,

The question is, "Are there interesting cases in which the author of
the package knows that 2.0 is absolutely not compatible with the
previous reasons?" Or, at least, knows that it's very rarely going to
be compatible?

Imagine that, as part of deploy, the author could attach a bit of
metadata that had these semantics.

Just in case, those semantics could be read by the enforcer instead of
by the maven core.

As it is, the OP needs a pretty good crystal ball to come up with a
comprehensive enforcer config of all the possible ancient versions in
transient dependencies (or there other way around) that could cause
havoc.

--benson



On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Jörg Schaible
<joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>  wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote:

The OP wishes that maven had some, ahem, declarative mechanism for
raising a flag in this case. No guessing. Some way to attach metadata
to 2.0 that says, 'you can't use this as a compatible replacement for
1.0. Yell instead.'
Yeah, I know, but in my case, I don't want a yell, simply because I can
use
2.0 as compatible version. Therefore, if this "compatibility" declaration
is
delivered by x:y:2.0, it does not make sense. If I should be able to
declare
it for my app, I could already use the enforcer instead.

- Jörg

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Jörg Schaible
<joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>  wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote:

There is perhaps a communications problem here. I don't think this is
about ranges. I suspect that it is about:

- project g:A version 1 depends on x:y:2.0
- project g:B version 1 depends on g:A:1 and x:y:1.0

What ends up in the classpath of B? x:y:2.0, I think.
So what? Should or can Maven now somehow detect that g:B uses stuff of
x:y:1.0 that is no longer available in x:y:2.0? If it does not, it is
not
helpful at all, if some mechanism ensures that g:B runs with x:y:1.0
only.

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org




--

*Tom Eugelink*
Senior software engineer
+31 (0)6 - 47 93 85 92
t.eugel...@knowledgeplaza.nl <mailto:t.eugel...@knowledgeplaza.nl>
        *KnowledgePlaza <http://www.knowledgeplaza.nl>*
Sutton 15
7327 AB Apeldoorn
Tel: +31 (0)55 - 526 3887
Fax: +31 (0)55 - 526 3950
i...@knowledgeplaza.nl <mailto:i...@knowledgeplaza.nl>
Disclaimer: The information contained in this message is for the intended 
addressee only and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If 
you are not the intended addressee, please delete this message and notify the 
sender; do not copy or distribute this message or disclose its contents to 
anyone.








Reply via email to