Hi Ishaaq, I am not sure but it seems like the dependency plugin is a good candidate to look at. Looking at the output of dependency:tree it shows scope informatie as well.
regards, Minto van der Sluis Ishaaq Chandy wrote: > > ok, will give it a go - any pointers on the API I should be looking at in > order to determine an artifact's scope? I'm not scared of trawling through > maven's source code myself, but a helpful pointer in the general direction > would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Ishaaq > > 2008/7/1 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I would think that you should be able to do that from an enforcer rule... >> >> Of course I have not tried... >> >> But if you need those kind of changes in enforcer, that would be a lot >> quicker to get than changes to Maven's core... >> >> Plus, such a custom rule would be of use to not just commercial >> projects, but also open source projects >> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Ishaaq Chandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > that would possibly work if there is a way for the enforcer to retrieve >> > scope information from the artifact - is this possible? >> > >> > Is it also possible for transitive dependencies, i.e., will the >> enforcer >> let >> > me allow the same artifact to go through when using it as a transitive >> dep >> > of a test-scope artifact but at the same time disallow the same >> artifact >> > when it is used as the transitive dep of a compile-scope artifact? >> > >> > I am unfamiliar with the API for custom enforcer rules and the >> documentation >> > on the maven site does not give me the level of detail I am looking for >> in >> > order to be able to answer these question easily myself. >> > >> > Ishaaq >> > >> > 2008/7/1 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >> To my mind what you want to do is write an enforcer custom rule that >> >> checks all the compile and runtime scoped dependencies against a >> >> whitelist server... >> >> >> >> I'd have a webserver that can e.g. take a query of the form >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://someurl/.../check?groupId=____&artifactId=_____&version=_____&classifier=____ >> >> >> >> and either returns TRUE or FALSE. >> >> >> >> Then write an enforcer custom rule, the config provides the base url >> >> to check against and specifies the scope to apply the rule to. >> >> >> >> That way you don't care what repository any dependency came from, and >> >> you just maintain your compile and runtime whitelist(s) >> >> >> >> BTW, you might want different whitelists for compile and runtime >> scopes! >> >> >> >> You might compile against a CDDL licensed jar but use a runtime >> >> dependency that is commercial >> >> >> >> -Stephen >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Ishaaq Chandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > Well, that could possibly work except that there is no way I can get >> that >> >> > internal locked down build to actually run - remember that maven >> does >> >> > everything via plugins - even the compilation is done using a plugin >> - >> so >> >> > all the plugins would have to be added to the closed repo - thus >> >> polluting >> >> > it with potentially legally incompatible artifacts. >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > Ishaaq >> >> > >> >> > 2008/7/1 Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi Ishaaq, >> >> >> >> >> >> Ishaaq Chandy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Aha! I think I see now why you think I have a special case, I >> think >> >> its a >> >> >> > simple case of misunderstanding - for which I'll assume all fault >> is >> >> mine >> >> >> > :) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Locked down versioning is not really the point. Even if we had a >> >> locked >> >> >> > versions of the test (in fact we do lock the test dependency >> versions) >> >> >> and >> >> >> > plugin artifacts that does not really resolve my issue: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. I need to ensure that the build only uses legally vetted >> versions >> >> of >> >> >> > compile/runtime dependencies. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2. On the other hand I can also have test and plugin deps >> (whether >> or >> >> not >> >> >> > I lock down their versions is immaterial) but my vetting process >> over >> >> >> them >> >> >> > are negligible and in fact, in the case of metrics gathering (for >> e.g. >> >> >> > code coverage etc) developers are actively encouraged to be on >> the >> >> >> lookout >> >> >> > for new tools that can improve the build process and QA. It is >> quite >> >> >> > possible and permissible that the latter actually have licenses >> that >> >> >> > forbid redistribution. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The easiest way to implement the latter is to point the build to >> the >> >> >> maven >> >> >> > central repo or an internal proxy of it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The correct way to implement the former is via a >> restricted-access >> >> >> > internally managed repo. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It turns out the two are incompatible because of maven's >> inability >> to >> >> >> > differentiate between the sources for differing-scoped artifacts. >> >> >> However, >> >> >> > I still do not think that these are niche, edge-case >> requirements, >> I >> >> >> think >> >> >> > they are quite reasonable. It just so happens that I do not lock >> down >> >> >> > plugin versions, but even if I did do so the problem does not go >> away. >> >> >> The >> >> >> > crux of the problem is that I want to proxy to maven central for >> some >> >> >> > types of artifacts and to my private repo for other types of >> artifacts >> >> >> and >> >> >> > I don't want maven to bleed dependency resolution from one repo >> to >> the >> >> >> > other. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Oh, and as I mentioned in passing in a previous post, we don't >> really >> >> >> need >> >> >> > long-term repeatability of the build - once it is released, an >> old >> >> >> version >> >> >> > of our product rarely needs to be checked out of source-control >> and >> >> >> > rebuilt from scratch. In the short term it is less likely that >> our >> >> build >> >> >> > will break because a plugin got upgraded - and even if it did, >> because >> >> we >> >> >> > use continuous integration it would quickly be caught and fixed. >> >> However, >> >> >> > this is really a side issue, if I had to lock down the versions >> of >> the >> >> >> > plugins to resolve my problem, I'd happily do that, but I don't >> think >> >> >> that >> >> >> > solves the problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> You might take a different approach using two different >> settings.xml >> and >> >> a >> >> >> internal-test profile (name it whatever you like). You can specify >> the >> >> >> settings file on the command line for maven. >> >> >> >> >> >> settings-product.xml: >> >> >> - define an own location for the local repo >> >> >> - define the approved company repo as remote repo >> >> >> - set the approved company repo as mirror for anything >> >> >> >> >> >> settings-internal.xml: >> >> >> - define an own location for the local repo >> >> >> - define the approved company repo as remote repo >> >> >> - activate profile "internal-test" by default >> >> >> >> >> >> If you run CI with settings-product.xml, you ensure that nothing >> has >> >> crept >> >> >> in. You may even run Ci twice, once for each setting to ensure no >> >> breakage. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your devs may choose also between the two settings, but they will >> have >> >> to >> >> >> put anything into the internal-test profile (deps, plugins, >> >> >> includes/excludes for the compiler, javadoc and surefire plugin) >> that >> >> >> depends on "unapproved" artifacts. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Jörg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 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] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/fatal-dependency-management-flaw-in-maven--tp18188983p18211522.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]
