This is essentially what I proposed long ago in Log4j Boot. They’d be pom files
with the appropriate dependencies marked in for simplicity of end users. Could
still be useful.
> On Jan 19, 2025, at 03:02, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Maven is notably bad at handling optional depend
Hi Gary,
On 21.01.2025 13:46, Gary Gregory wrote:
This all sounds very confusing to me. Using this scheme, I could
create a set of dependencies on 2.x with empty jars that don't work on
3.x (because I picked the wrong jars). There is no way to verify that
what I'm doing on 2.x will work on 3.x w
This all sounds very confusing to me. Using this scheme, I could
create a set of dependencies on 2.x with empty jars that don't work on
3.x (because I picked the wrong jars). There is no way to verify that
what I'm doing on 2.x will work on 3.x without trying it on 3.x, so...
or am I missing someth
Hi Robert,
On 19.01.2025 18:39, Robert Middleton wrote:
If I'm understanding this correctly, this sounds like a bad idea.
While it does make the 2.x -> 3.x transition easier, it creates a
bigger issue for when you go from 2.x -> 2.y.
As long as `x` is higher than `y` there will be no problems:
If I'm understanding this correctly, this sounds like a bad idea.
While it does make the 2.x -> 3.x transition easier, it creates a
bigger issue for when you go from 2.x -> 2.y. Personally I always
find it very annoying when software makes big changes like this on a
minor release, since it certain
Hi Ralph,
On 19.01.2025 17:55, Ralph Goers wrote:
I must be misunderstanding. IIUC you are proposing that to eliminate optional
dependencies we create a bunch of empty jars, presumably with a pom that has
the dependency as required. How exactly does that help? Doesn’t that new,
empty artifa
I must be misunderstanding. IIUC you are proposing that to eliminate optional
dependencies we create a bunch of empty jars, presumably with a pom that has
the dependency as required. How exactly does that help? Doesn’t that new,
empty artifact just become an optional dependency? Isn’t it requi
Hi all,
Maven is notably bad at handling optional dependencies, which are
basically ignored by consumers of the POM file. While Log4j Core 3
solves this problem by not having **any** optional dependencies, we
could backport this feature also to Log4j Core 2.
What do you think about adding em
