hboutemy opened a new pull request #228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/228
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 t
Hello Maven devs,
I'm trying to programmatically ingest a pom.xml and start a Maven
dependency resolution on it.
For that end, I'm using DefaultProjectBuildingRequest and a ProjectBuilder.
I could successfully issue the request, but when trying against a pom that
relies on a parent or a BOM (spring
In the past I've tried to set several maven(core) dependencies of a plugin to
provided and it broke!
I didn't understand it and didn't had the time to analyze it.
Just a huge warning that you can expect surprises.
I think we can start thinking of "provided" if we have clear APIs and SPIs
defined
Yup,
this can be approached on "two ends": from Maven and from Plugins
Note: let's name artifacts having GA org.apache.maven:maven-* as "maven
runtime", artifacts being "the maven", in short: MR.
>From plugin end, I never understood why MR dependencies are NOT declared as
"provided".
maven-p
Hi everyone,
Does it mean we have two action items:
1. make maven plugin plugin warn or fail (with a toggle) if a maven stack
plugin is in scope compile and not provided
2. filter a bit what we "know" (probably using semver in a whitelist of
dependencies)
2 is not perfect from a design point of
Yup, "provided" scope would make it, but, as you say, it would require all
(ours and non-ours) to be "fixed".
Just for example, in tooling we did for Nexus 2, the NX plugin packaging
(equivalent of maven plugin packaging)
was ENFORCING that any NX artifact used as NX plugin dependency be declared
thinking about plexus-utils case: only XPP3 class is shared by Maven core
Then I imagine that it that dependency is filtered at runtime, many calls from
plugins to other features of that lib will fail...
If you don't beat at me, I'll try to test tonight
Another idea: would marking libraries as "p
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7097
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:41 AM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I agree with you: is a really small change.
> Re non-exported packages: will take a look into those a bit more, my POC
> was just at "artifact level"... (but given Maven
