On 14 January 2014 22:49, KARR, DAVID <[email protected]> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barrie Treloar [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:23 PM
> > To: Maven Users List
> > Subject: Re: Is it possible to deliberately have two dependencies with
> the
> > same groupid, artifactid, and packaging, but different version?
> >
> > On 15 January 2014 01:40, KARR, DAVID <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Again, I didn't want to debate whether this is "convenient", I just
> wanted
> > to know if Maven dependency resolution and things like the EAR plugin
> will
> > have any trouble incorporating multiple dependencies with the same G:A,
> but
> > different version.
> >
> > David, you've been on the list long enough to see the term "If you
> > fight Maven you will lose".
> > That way pain lies.
>
> I haven't heard anyone confirm conclusively that this will not work, so up
> to now it appears to just be an opinion that there's something wrong with
> this approach.
>

Perhaps I just wasn't clear enough...

Maven will resolve any list of dependencies so that there is a single
unique version of any GA.

Where you have a maven does not bomb out when you double list a dependency,
you will get a single version.

The correct parsing behaviour that Maven *should* follow is:

* If the double dependency is in a project *being built* then fail the build

* If the double dependency is in a dependency of the project being built,
then resolve to single version.

AFAIK the only unknown I am aware of is whether the first case applies, but
in all cases that I am aware of you will only see one version of any GA


> I've also been writing software long enough to know that reality often
> makes theory irrelevant.
>
> > You will have much more joy solving the problem in a way that Maven helps
> > you.
> >
> > Does any of Stephen's response help out?
>
> I believe that's a different situation.
>
> There will be a new version of this artifact every single month such that
> multiple versions of the same artifact can and will be used at the same
> time (very soon we will be using 6 at the same time).  It doesn't make
> sense to me to define a new group id or artifact id every month,
> considering the only difference between two names (and their contents) will
> simply be a number, representing its version number.  If the only
> difference is the version, then it should be reflected in the version
> number, as that's the primary difference between them.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to