Dennis Lundberg wrote: > Lucas Bergman wrote: > > Running this test with Maven 2.1.0 fails: > > > > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/commons/logging/LogFactory > > [ ... ] > > > > The POM for htmlunit 2.5 declares commons-logging 1.1.1 as a > > (compile-scope) dependency, so this seems wrong. There seems to > > be some interaction between that POM and the dependent POMs. > > Indeed: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > 2. Adding an exclusion of commons-logging to the > > hibernate-ehcache dependency causes the test to succeed. I > > tried this, because the hibernate-ehcache POM depends on > > commons-logging version 99.0-does-not-exist, a rather famous > > JBoss kludge[1]. > > > > [ ... ] > > > > Footnotes: > > [1] > > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/10/announcement-version-99-does-not-exist.html > > That is your problem. What this does is mess the dependency-tree. It > removes commons-logging from the dependency tree because that > version "99.0-..." is larger than the latest current release of > commons-logging. The "99.0-..." version should *never ever* reach > end users. It can *only* be used by internal project.
Thanks for the input. Are you saying that the dependency of the hibernate-ehcache POM on commons-logging 99.0-does-not-exist is a bug? I'm sympathetic to that view, but I just want to be sure. To be sure, it seems foolish for the Hibernate developers to put something like this in a library's POM, since it would seem to impose their kludge on the programmer using the library. Of course, we fixed our particular problem by adding an <exclusion> for commons-logging from our hibernate-ehcache dependency. -- Lucas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
