jira-importer commented on issue #189: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-war-plugin/issues/189#issuecomment-2967849064
**[Alex Rau](https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=rauar)** commented Paul I agree with you that this could be more under control of the war plugin. However it looks (at least to me) like the handling (resolution) of artifacts of certain types (WAR in our case here) is fundamentally settled in the plexus configuration and artifact resolution. The war plugin (from what I've seen during my debug session) just gets the resolved artifacts presented without being able to control that process. Therefore is "just receives" the resolved dependencies based on the WAR artifact type which does (based on the plexus configuration) not include transitive dependencies. **If** the WAR plugin should be configurable in this respect I guess it's more difficult as there needs to be some communication between WAR plugin and dependency resolution (which does not exist as far as I know). I think the actual question first is: should the dependency resolution really be different for WARs compared to JARs ? Does a WAR dependency justify the dependency resolution mechanism to cut off transitive dependencies ? In the end both types of artifacts are quite similar - both are essentially java class artifacts (or libraries if you want) where the WAR artifact may include additional filesystem resources and libraries. The existence of libraries leads to a conflict here as the WAR bundle itself and maven "want" to take over control over dependencies in general. The current situation is: the WAR file wins and maven does not deal with transitive dependencies in favor of the WAR artifact. This leads to the conflict that "on-top" artifacts based on WAR files can't be handled by maven properly as there is some kind of processing gap in the dependency chain where maven is missing proper information about dependencies to properly deal with them. This is why I personally do not really consider this to be a hack. I think the change would reflect a fundamental change in the behaviour of dealing with WAR artifacts. And it would not just be a local fix to the WAR plugin but a change which would straighten the dependency resolution in general for maven (and all affected plugins). I'm aware of that this is a quite severe change (e.g. what are the effects on other plugins dealing with WARs ?). But on the other hand I consider this issue being a bigger problem as well as Maven remains some kind of "incomplete" dependeny maangement solution for WAR projects. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
