Sorry, I hope it is not against this group's etiquette to ping on a question after several days of waiting for a reaction. Otherwise please tell me and I will apologise and promise not to do it again.
-- Alexander Kriegisch https://scrum-master.de Alexander Kriegisch schrieb am 01.07.2020 13:07 (GMT +07:00): > Situation (sorry for maybe explaining too much): > > -- I have a multi-module project with an aggregator POM which is > also the parent for all dependent modules. > -- The modules implement different byte code transformation > features. > -- In some modules I use Maven Shade in order build fat JARs which > can be used as Java agents. > -- Those Java agents add themselves to the bootstrap class path > during start-up, utilising the "Boot-Class-Path" manifest entry. > For that purpose, it is imperative that the Java agents are fat > JARs because their dependencies also need to be on the bootstrap > class path, because the byte code transformations can also target > other bootstrap classes. This works very well, I have no issues > with that. > -- Besides, I also build compound source JARs for the shaded JARs, > which also works nicely. > -- For each JAR I also build a variant with third-party classes > relocated to my own package name space, in case the user happens > to use the same dependencies and has problems due to API changes > which cannot be reconciled by dependency version management. Also > here, I build compound source files with relocated source > packages. This also works nicely. > > Problem description: > > I want users to be able to depend on the shaded agent JARs without > pulling other dependencies into their projects because the agent JARs > already contain all classes necessary to run them. > > But if I declare the dependencies as optional in the module using > Maven Shade, dependent modules in my own project (e.g. integration > test modules) no longer compile in IntelliJ IDEA. This is not a Maven > problem, but still something I need to avoid for the sake of being > able to use my IDE. > > As an alternative, I can urge the user to use something like this: > > <dependency> > <groupId>xxx</groupId> > <artifactId>yyy</artifactId> > <excludes> > <excludes> > <groupId>*</groupId> > <artifactId>*</artifactId> > </exclude> > </exclude> > </dependency> > > This is not nice and I do not wish to burden my users with that. > > What I am currently doing is to use something like this in each module > building shaded JARs: > > <plugin> > <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId> > <artifactId>flatten-maven-plugin</artifactId> > <version>1.2.2</version> > <executions> > <!-- Remove shaded dependencies from uber JAR --> > <execution> > <id>flatten</id> > <phase>process-resources</phase> > <goals> > <goal>flatten</goal> > </goals> > <configuration> > <flattenMode>oss</flattenMode> > <pomElements> > <dependencies>remove</dependencies> > </pomElements> > <outputDirectory>${project.build.directory}</outputDirectory> > <flattenedPomFilename>flattened-pom.xml</flattenedPomFilename> > </configuration> > </execution> > </executions> > </plugin> > > This has the effect of creating a POM similar to the > dependency-reduced POM created by Maven Shade and installing it > together with the uber JAR artifact. Now the dependency graph looks > "clean" to users of my libraries. I know it is not the Maven way of > managin dependencies, but uber JARs with shaded dependencies exist in > the real world and I explained at the beginning how/why they are > useful in my case. > > BTW, IntelliJ IDEA still adds all dependencies to the classpath and > excludes the uber JAR, trying to be smarter than Maven itself but > getting it wrong. But that is not your problem, I can deal with that > and provide the path to the uber JAR in another way to my integration > tests. The most important thing is that Maven and IDEA do not see the > dependencies when using the uber JARs from other project outside of my > own multi-module project. > > Questions: > > 1. Is there any more canonical way of doing what I did, i.e. > directly using the dependency-reduced POM generated by Maven > Shade in order to replace the original JAR when installing my > artifact? Then I could get rid of the Flatten plugin (which also > removes other stuff and even empty lines from my POMs, making > them look horrible) and just use Shade. > > 2. Can I achieve a similar result in a better way altogether? > > 3. Does anyone even happen to know a way to make this work within my > multi-module project in connection with building and running > tests with IntelliJ IDEA? BTW, I also experimented with attaching > the shaded JARs to the original artifact with special > classifiers. This again works with Maven, but not in IDEA. > > Sorry for the lengthy post, thanks for bearing with me. I really > wonder if I am the only one having this kind of problem because I > found nothing useful on StackOverflow or doing a global web search. > Maybe I did not use the right search terms. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
