12 Aug
2011
12 Aug
'11
1:50 p.m.
Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties
---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today
slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always generate
correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static byte code
check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
See
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
Thanks
-Vincent
12 Aug
12 Aug
4:45 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties
---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today
slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
+1 as well.
Note that the "Unused declared dependencies
found:" doesn't always generate correct results as is the case here. This is
mostly because it's a static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be
considered unused.
See
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
15 Aug
15 Aug
9:25 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
* In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the following to
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have to
explicitly import SLF4J -->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
</dependency>
* In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API just need to
depend on this artifact and
don't have to explicitly add a dependency on javax.inject:java.inject.
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
<artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
<version>1</version>
</dependency>
So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on javax.inject and
org.slf4j?
I'm not so sure about that…
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties
---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today
slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
+1 as well. Note that the
"Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always generate correct
results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static byte code check so
any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
See
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
> Thanks
> -Vincent
10:28 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On 08/15/2011 03:25 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hm, personally I'm in favor of Yes, but not very strongly.
These are utility dependencies, which don't add much value to the code;
they're part of the "infrastructure". So it would make sense to list
only "real" dependencies that influence the higher level code.
On the other hand, it's simpler to have just one clear rule: list all
used dependencies. This also makes it easier to hunt down and spot all
users of a library in case we need to change it, like we recently did
with log4j->slf4j.
Another thing just came to my mind in favor of not listing them: Maven
encourages reuse and convention-over-configuration, so it would be good
to define common infrastructure in just one place instead of
copy-pasting it everywhere.
On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
* In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the following to
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have to
explicitly import SLF4J -->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
</dependency>
* In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API just need to
depend on this artifact and
don't have to explicitly add a dependency on javax.inject:java.inject.
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
<artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
<version>1</version>
</dependency>
So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on javax.inject and
org.slf4j?
I'm not so sure about that…
WDYT? Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties
---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today
slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
+1 as well. Thanks
-Vincent
>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always
generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static
byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
>> See
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
>
> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
10:31 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
component so it's redundant from my POV.
On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
* In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the following to
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have to
explicitly import SLF4J -->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
</dependency>
* In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
<!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API just need to
depend on this artifact and
don't have to explicitly add a dependency on javax.inject:java.inject.
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
<artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
<version>1</version>
</dependency>
So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on javax.inject and
org.slf4j?
I'm not so sure about that… Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties
---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today
slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
+1 as well.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
Note that
the "Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always generate correct
results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static byte code check so
any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
See
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
> Thanks
> -Vincent 
5 Jun
5 Jun
11:32 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
Hi devs,
I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I have
the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never silently
depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as well)
2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
convention-over-configuration
over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j, xwiki-commons-stability
? ... should be in a high level parent pom
3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple, it
would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api stop providing
javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop providing junit,
mockito, and al.
It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is limited
and could create false positive.
WDYT ?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
> >>>
> >>> For example:
> >>>
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> …
> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >>> [WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >>>
> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this
> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api
> dep)
> >>>
> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >>
> >> +1 as well.
> >
> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >
> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components
> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the following
> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have
> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API
> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > <version>1</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that…
>
> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> component so it's redundant from my POV.
>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't always
> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a
> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
> >>> See
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >>
> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
11:42 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
depend on A.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
Hi devs,
I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I have
the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never silently
depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as well)
2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
convention-over-configuration
over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j, xwiki-commons-stability
? ... should be in a high level parent pom
3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple, it
would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api stop providing
javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop providing junit,
mockito, and al.
It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is limited
and could create false positive.
WDYT ?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
--
Thomas Mortagne
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
> >>>
> >>> For example:
> >>>
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> …
> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >>> [WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >>>
> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this
> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api
> dep)
> >>>
> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >>
> >> +1 as well.
> >
> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >
> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components
> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the following
> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have
> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API
> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > <version>1</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that…
>
> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> component so it's redundant from my POV.
>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't always
> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a
> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
> >>> See
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >>
> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are needed
> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback, which
> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in every
> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So yes,
> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should still
> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as dependencies.
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:14 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
What happen if you also use dependency A not just because of B ?
How do you determine "because of B" ?
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps of
xwiki-platform-core ?
Should we remove it ? What about deps for logging ?
And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably provided scope) to a
high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget it,
since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require
dependency A
because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
depend on A.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
results.
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
Hi devs,
I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I
have
the feeling that our deps become more and more
convoluted.
To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never silently
depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as well)
2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
convention-over-configuration
over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
xwiki-commons-stability
? ... should be in a high level parent pom
3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple, it
would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api stop providing
javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop providing junit,
mockito, and al.
It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is
limited
and could create false positive.
WDYT ?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting > >>>
> >>> For example:
> >>>
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons -
Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> …
> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >>> [WARNING]
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >>>
> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this
> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the
component-api
> dep)
> >>>
> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >>
> >> +1 as well.
> >
> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >
> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components
> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
following
> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have
> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API
> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > <version>1</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that…
>
> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> component so it's redundant from my POV.
>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't always
> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because
it's
a
> static byte code check so any dep used at
runtime will be considered
unused.
> >>> See
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >>
> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are
needed
> >> transitively by another library. For
example, slf4j needs logback,
which
> >> we never use directly (although we
don't really declare it in every
> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So
yes,
> >> we can safely ignore most of these
false negatives, but we should
still
> >> try to remove those that are really
wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:27 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
What happen if you also use dependency A not just
because of B ?
You put a dependency on A.
How do you determine "because of B" ?
By thinking.
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
What about deps for logging ?
Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
should be enough.
And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably
provided scope) to a
high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget it,
since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
For me the rule to apply is simple: when you
require dependency A
because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
depend on A.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
results.
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Hi devs,
I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I
have
the feeling that our deps become more and more
convoluted.
To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never silently
depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as well)
2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
convention-over-configuration
over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
xwiki-commons-stability
? ... should be in a high level parent pom
3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple, it
would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api stop providing
javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop providing junit,
mockito, and al.
It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is
limited
and could create false positive.
WDYT ?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting > >>>
> >>> For example:
> >>>
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons -
Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >>> [INFO]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> …
> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >>> [WARNING]
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >>>
> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this
> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the
component-api
> dep)
> >>>
> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >>
> >> +1 as well.
> >
> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >
> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having components
> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
following
> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They don't have
> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >
> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component API
> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > <version>1</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that…
>
> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> component so it's redundant from my POV.
>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't always
> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because
it's
a
> static byte code check so any dep used at
runtime will be considered
unused.
> >>> See
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >>
> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are
needed
> >> transitively by another library. For
example, slf4j needs logback,
which
> >> we never use directly (although we
don't really declare it in every
> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility. So
yes,
> >> we can safely ignore most of these
false negatives, but we should
still
> >> try to remove those that are really
wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:10 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Ok, I rephrase my question.
Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and
the opposite ?
Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we agree
on that, we should remove it ASAP.
Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems opposite to
what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to agree on a rule.
To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of" is clear
enough to not create confusion. I also agree with Sergiu that we should
list all (no warning of used deps not declared in dependency:analysis),
this make the rule clear at least. I am not against factoring common
infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is not
a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B.
What happen if you also use dependency A not just
because of B ?
You put a dependency on A.
How do you determine "because of B" ?
By thinking.
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
What about deps for logging ?
Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
should be enough.
And could we add xwiki-commons-stability
(probably provided scope) to a
high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget it,
since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
> an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
> depend on A.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I
> have
> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> >
> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> >
> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never
silently
> > depends on transitive dependency of
another module (with IMO some
> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
> > should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as
well)
> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should
reuse and apply
> > convention-over-configuration
> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
> xwiki-commons-stability
> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple,
it
> > would be really curious that
xwiki-commons-component-api stop
providing
> > javax.inject, or that
xwki-commons-test-components stop providing
junit,
> > mockito, and al.
> >
> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
> > check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
> > enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is
> limited
> > and could create false positive.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >> >>> Hi devs,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting
> results.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For example:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki
Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> …
> >> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >>
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all
others):
> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j
and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for
this
> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and
javax.inject are found in the
> component-api
> >> dep)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 as well.
> >> >
> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >> >
> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having
components
> >> (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
> following
> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They
don't
have
> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component
API
> >> just need to depend on this artifact
and
> >> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> >> > <version>1</version>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> >> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> >>
> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> >> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Vincent
> >> >
> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't
always
> >> generate correct results as is the
case here. This is mostly because
> it's a
> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered
> unused.
> >> >>> See
> >>
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are
> needed
> >> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback,
> which
> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in
every
> >> >> module that does logging).
Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility.
So
yes,
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> we can safely ignore most of these
false negatives, but we should
still
> >> try to remove those that are really
wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:23 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
> Ok, I rephrase my question.
> Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and the
opposite?
I'll dare explaining
Indirect dependency (no dependency on A should be defined in C):
C ----> B ----> A
* C uses classes from B
* B uses classes from A
* C does NOT use classes from A
Direct dependency (explicit dependency on A should be defined in C)
C ----> B ----> A
\_ _ _ _ _ _ _^
* C uses classes from B
* B uses classes from A
* C uses classes from A
-----Original Message-----
From: devs [mailto:devs-bounces@xwiki.org] On Behalf Of Denis Gervalle
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 16:10 PM
To: XWiki Developers
Subject: Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used
dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an existing module.
Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B.
What happen if you also use dependency A not just
because of B ?
You put a dependency on A.
How do you determine "because of B" ?
By thinking.
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps
of xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
What about deps for logging ?
Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
should be enough.
And could we add xwiki-commons-stability
(probably provided scope)
to a high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or
forget it, since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you
> implement an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not
> explicitly depend on A.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion,
> > and I
> have
> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> >
> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> >
> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never
silently
> > depends on transitive dependency of
another module (with IMO some
> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by
> > dependency:analyse should be explicitly declare in the effective
> > pom (Vincent POV as
well)
> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should
reuse and apply
> > convention-over-configuration over configuration, so common
> > dependency like slf4j,
> xwiki-commons-stability
> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for
> > exemple,
it
> > would be really curious that
xwiki-commons-component-api stop
providing
> > javax.inject, or that
xwki-commons-test-components stop providing
junit,
> > mockito, and al.
> >
> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to
> > always check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best
> > would be to enforce those rules, but this is not easy since
> > static analysis is
> limited
> > and could create false positive.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol
> >> <vincent(a)massol.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >> >>> Hi devs,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces
> >> >>> interesting
> results.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For example:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
> >> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki
Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
> >> >>> …
> >> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli)
> >> >>> @
> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >>
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all
others):
> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j
and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml
> >> >>> for
this
> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and
javax.inject are found in the
> component-api
> >> dep)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 as well.
> >> >
> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >> >
> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having
components
> >> (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
> following
> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They
> >> > don't
have
> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the
> >> > Component
API
> >> just need to depend on this artifact
and
> >> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> >> > <version>1</version>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending
> >> > on
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep
> >> on javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> >>
> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using
> >> slf4j or javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an
> >> XWiki component so it's redundant from my POV.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Vincent
> >> >
> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't
always
> >> generate correct results as is the
case here. This is mostly
> >> because
> it's a
> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be
> >> considered
> unused.
> >> >>> See
> >>
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dep
endency-plugin.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but
> >> >> are
> needed
> >> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs
> >> >> logback,
> which
> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in
every
> >> >> module that does logging).
Hibernate needs us to pick a
> >> >> cache, a connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation
utility.
So
yes,
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >> we can safely ignore most of these
false negatives, but we
> >> should
still
> >> try to remove those that are really
wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
7:42 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On 06/05/2014 09:23 AM, Roman Muntyanu wrote:
This will NOT be reported by dependency:analyze, so this shouldn't be
declared as a dependency of C, ever.
> Ok, I
rephrase my question.
> Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and the
opposite?
I'll dare explaining
Indirect dependency (no dependency on A should be defined in C):
C ----> B ----> A
* C uses classes from B
* B uses classes from A
* C does NOT use classes from A Direct dependency (explicit dependency on A should be
defined in C)
C ----> B ----> A
\_ _ _ _ _ _ _^
* C uses classes from B
* B uses classes from A
* C uses classes from A
This is actually the topic of the discussion. It's not about what B
uses, but what C uses.
Since C uses A, it's obvious that it should declare it as a dependency,
and not assume that B will be there to provide it, unless B is a
"grouping" component, like xwiki-commons-test-components, which is
supposed to bring everything needed for testing components.
Big +1 for declaring all the used dependencies, except for "boilerplate"
ones.
+1 for not declaring the transitive dependencies of standard groups:
testing tools chained to the commons-test-components, component modules
chained to xwiki-commons-component-api
-1 for declaring global dependencies, they're actually hidden inter-pom
dependencies.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
3:42 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
Ok, I rephrase my question.
Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and
the opposite ?
I'm not going to copy/paste a dictionary definition of "because of".
It's pretty obvious to me why I'm using an API, if B is not in the
equation does my code still work ?
Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we agree
on that, we should remove it ASAP.
Yes if we agree on that we should remove it. You don't have such
forced dependency on commons and it does not make it a nightmare...
Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems opposite to
what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to agree on a rule.
No forced dependency if it's possible any if the submodule won't need
it. It can make sense in some very specific use cases where all
submodules will have this dependency or else they have nothing to do
here (for example dependency on rendering-api in
xwiki-platform-rendering) but it's certainly not true for something
like root commons or platform pom.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
If all your are saying here is that we don't have tools to enforce
that rule then yes we don't have tool to enforce that rule but we
don't have any to apply any of the proposed rules so far.
The only tool we have is going to force you put a dependency on each
and every import you have. Do you really want to apply that ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B. What happen if you also use dependency A not just
because of B ?
You put a dependency on A.
How do you determine "because of B" ?
By thinking.
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
What about deps for logging ?
Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
should be enough.
And could we add xwiki-commons-stability
(probably provided scope) to a
high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget it,
since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of" is clear
enough to not create confusion. I also agree with Sergiu that we should
list all (no warning of used deps not declared in dependency:analysis),
this make the rule clear at least. I am not against factoring common
infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is not
a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
> an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
> depend on A.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion, and I
> have
> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> >
> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> >
> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never
silently
> > depends on transitive dependency of
another module (with IMO some
> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by dependency:analyse
> > should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as
well)
> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should
reuse and apply
> > convention-over-configuration
> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
> xwiki-commons-stability
> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for exemple,
it
> > would be really curious that
xwiki-commons-component-api stop
providing
> > javax.inject, or that
xwki-commons-test-components stop providing
junit,
> > mockito, and al.
> >
> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to always
> > check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best would be to
> > enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static analysis is
> limited
> > and could create false positive.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >> >>> Hi devs,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting
> results.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For example:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki
Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> …
> >> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >>
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all
others):
> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j
and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for
this
> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and
javax.inject are found in the
> component-api
> >> dep)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 as well.
> >> >
> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >> >
> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having
components
> >> (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
> following
> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They
don't
have
> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the Component
API
> >> just need to depend on this artifact
and
> >> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> >> > <version>1</version>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> >> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> >>
> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j or
> >> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Vincent
> >> >
> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't
always
> >> generate correct results as is the
case here. This is mostly because
> it's a
> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered
> unused.
> >> >>> See
> >>
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but are
> needed
> >> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs logback,
> which
> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in
every
> >> >> module that does logging).
Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility.
So
yes,
>> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we should
still
>> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> -Vincent
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devs mailing list
>> > devs(a)xwiki.org
>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
7:34 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Ok, I rephrase my question.
Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and
If you cannot define the rule, you can apply it, that's all.
Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we agree
You missed my point, removing it now could become a nightmare, and keeping
it further surely increase it. I completely agree that if we do not want
any useless deps in our module, we should not add such "global" deps.
Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems opposite to
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
If this is the best way to have a consistent usage of dependencies and to
keep it up to date, why not ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
If all your are saying here is that we don't have tools to enforce
that rule then yes we don't have tool to enforce that rule but we
don't have any to apply any of the proposed rules so far.
The only tool we have is going to force you put a dependency on each
and every import you have. Do you really want to apply that ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B. What happen if you also use dependency A not just
because of B ?
You put a dependency on A.
How do you determine "because of B" ?
By thinking.
the opposite ?
I'm not going to copy/paste a dictionary definition of "because of".
It's pretty obvious to me why I'm using an
API, if B is not in the
equation does my code still work ?
It is not that obvious, your code is not a monolith.
>
> >
> > And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps
of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
on that, we should remove it ASAP.
Yes if we agree on that we should remove it. You don't have such
forced dependency on commons and it does not make it a nightmare...
>
> > What about deps for logging ?
>
> Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
> feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
> should be enough.
>
> > And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably provided scope) to
a
> > high level pom to avoid adding/removing
it all the time ? (or forget
it,
since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api
currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to
agree on a rule.
No forced dependency if it's possible any if the submodule won't need
it. It can make sense in some very specific use cases where all
submodules will have this dependency or else they have nothing to do
here (for example dependency on rendering-api in
xwiki-platform-rendering) but it's certainly not true for something
like root commons or platform pom.
To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of" is
clear
enough to not create confusion. I also agree with
Sergiu that we should
list all (no warning of used deps not declared in dependency:analysis),
this make the rule clear at least. I am not against factoring common
infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is
not
a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
>
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
> >> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you
implement
> >> an interface of A to be found by B,
etc.) you should not explicitly
> >> depend on A.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>
wrote:
> >> > Hi devs,
> >> >
> >> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion,
and I
> >> have
> >> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> >> >
> >> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never
> silently
> >> > depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
> >> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by
dependency:analyse
> >> > should be explicitly declare in
the effective pom (Vincent POV as
> well)
> >> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
> >> > convention-over-configuration
> >> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
> >> xwiki-commons-stability
> >> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> >> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for
exemple,
> it
> >> > would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api stop
> providing
> >> > javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop providing
> junit,
> >> > mockito, and al.
> >> >
> >> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to
always
> >> > check our pom upon finishing
changes in a module. The best would
be to
> >> > enforce those rules, but this
is not easy since static analysis is
> >> limited
> >> > and could create false positive.
> >> >
> >> > WDYT ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> >> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <
vincent(a)massol.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >> >> >>> Hi devs,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces
interesting
> >> results.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> For example:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> [INFO]
> >> >>
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> [INFO]
Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >> >> >>> [INFO]
> >> >>
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> …
> >> >> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze
(default-cli) @
> >> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >> >>
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally
for all
> others):
> >> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the
pom.xml for
> this
> >> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the
> >> component-api
> >> >> dep)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> +1 as well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having
> components
> >> >> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
> >> following
> >> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They
don't
> have
> >> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> >> >> > <dependency>
> >> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> >> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> >> >> > </dependency>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
> >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the
Component
> API
> >> >> just need to depend on this artifact and
> >> >> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
> >> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> >> >> > <dependency>
> >> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> >> >> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> >> >> > <version>1</version>
> >> >> > </dependency>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending
on
> >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
> >> >> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using
slf4j
or
> >> >> javax.inject are what you
HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> >> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > WDYT?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > -Vincent
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies
found:" doesn't
> always
> >> >> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly
because
> >> it's a
> >> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be
considered
> >> unused.
> >> >> >>> See
> >> >>
> >>
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us,
but are
> >> needed
> >> >> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs
logback,
> >> which
> >> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't really
declare it in
> every
> >> >> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a
cache,
a
> >> >> >> connection pool,
validator, and a bytecode manipulation
utility.
> So
> >> yes,
> >> >> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we
should
> still
> >> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as
> dependencies.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Thanks
> >> >>> -Vincent
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > devs mailing list
> >> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Mortagne
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devs mailing list
> >> devs(a)xwiki.org
> >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Denis Gervalle
> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:51 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
Hi,
2014-06-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>lu>:
Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we agree
on that, we should remove it ASAP.
it,
Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems opposite to
what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to agree on a rule.
To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of" is clear
enough to not create confusion. I also agree with Sergiu that we should
list all (no warning of used deps not declared in dependency:analysis),
this make the rule clear at least. I am not against factoring common
infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
I'm not sure it relates to what you describe above. Factoring deps in a
common infrastructure is more a matter of using dependencyManagement at
correct level (top-most usually), but the rule to declare only deps that
are really needed per module is a very widely used best practice.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> > What happen if you also use dependency A not just because of B ?
> You put a dependency on A.
But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B.
> > How do you determine
"because of B" ?
> By thinking.
Ok, I rephrase my question.
Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B and
the opposite ?
If I understood, you depend on B, and by transitivity, you also depend on A
(indirectly).
Then, from your module you use some classes of A (brought to you
indirectly, so "magically", it compiles).
So you never explicitly declare the dep on A from your module. If one day
you remove dependency on B for any reason, you will also loose A (and also
you can say it's an explicit dependency that is not "explicit", though
it's
a matter of taste or point of view to consider transitive deps not to be
explicit ...).
The opposite would be to declare explicit dep on A from your module, while
you don't need it at all - only B needs it.
And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
What about deps for logging ?
Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
should be enough.
> And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably provided scope) to a
> high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget since it
come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
From a contributor (not committer) point of view,
it's sometimes annoying
to have to update your builds because of this kind of
changes. Obviously it
would be difficult to consider those dependency graphs as APIs :) , but at
the same time when they evolve too frequently, it can be considered painful
to follow by devs in general ...
Some are not impacting, but for example regarding @Unstable, if it's not
brought anymore by xwiki-commons-component-api, it will break my build when
I upgrade xwiki versions.
With Maven, it's not really a "bad" practice, to consider that some poms
are used mainly to bring to you a set of logically related dependencies by
transitivity (there's even the "import" scope, though it's not the best
sample of good practice I agree). Question is more (case by case), is it
really "bad" to bring @Unstable by default to everyone that develops an
xwiki component, even if he will never use it / don't use it anymore ?
It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is not
a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
wrote:
dependency:analyse
exemple,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component
because
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
should
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
WDYT ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
>> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you implement
>> an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not explicitly
>> depend on A.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> >> > Hi devs,
>> >
>> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a conclusion,
and
I
> have
> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> >
> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> >
> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should never
silently
>> > depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO some
>> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by > >
should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent POV as
well)
>> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
>> > convention-over-configuration
>> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
>> xwiki-commons-stability
>> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
>> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for it
always
> > would be really curious that
xwiki-commons-component-api stop
providing
> > javax.inject, or that
xwki-commons-test-components stop providing
junit,
>> > mockito, and al.
>> >
>> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and to >> > check our pom upon finishing
changes in a module. The best would be
to
>> > enforce those rules, but this is
not easy since static analysis is
>> limited
>> > and could create false positive.
>> >
>> > WDYT ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <
vincent(a)massol.net>
>
>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >> >>> Hi devs,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting
> results.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For example:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
>
>> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> >> >>> [INFO]
> >>
>
>
>> >>> …
> >> >>> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @
> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> >>
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> >> >>> [WARNING]
> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more generally for all
others):
> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j
and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for
this
> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and
javax.inject are found in the
> component-api
> >> dep)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 as well.
> >> >
> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> >> >
> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules having
components
> >> (i.e. depending on
xwiki-commons-component-api) I had added the
> following
> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to log - They
don't
have
>> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
>> >> > <dependency>
>> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
>> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
>> >> > </dependency>
>> >> >
>> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on javax.inject in
>> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
>> >> >
>> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users of the API
>> >> just need to depend on this artifact and
>> >> > don't have to explicitly add a dependency on
>> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
>> >> > <dependency>
>> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
>> >> > <artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
>> >> > <version>1</version>
>> >> > </dependency>
>> >> >
>> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module depending on
>> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an explicit dep on
>> >> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
>> >>
>> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies, using slf4j
or
>
>> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an XWiki
> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Vincent
> >> >
> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:"
doesn't
always
>> >> generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly >> it's a
>> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be
considered
>
unused.
> >> >>> See
> >>
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly by us, but
are
>> needed
>> >> >> transitively by another library. For example, slf4j needs
logback,
>
which
> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't really declare it in
every
> >> >> module that does logging).
Hibernate needs us to pick a cache, a
> >> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode manipulation utility.
So
>> yes,
>> >> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we
still
>> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as
dependencies.
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> -Vincent
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devs mailing list
>> > devs(a)xwiki.org
>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
7:43 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeremie BOUSQUET <jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com
Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we agree
Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems opposite to
This is bad, since I do not see any reason for xwiki-commons-component-api
to bring xwiki-commons-stability to you.
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 2014-06-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>lu>:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> > >
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu wrote:
> > > > What happen if you
also use dependency A not just because of B ?
> > >
> > > You put a dependency on A.
> > >
> >
> > But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
> > existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to B.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > How do you determine "because of B" ?
> > >
> > > By thinking.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I rephrase my question.
> > Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of B
> and
> > the opposite ?
> >
> >
> If I understood, you depend on B, and by transitivity, you also depend on A
> (indirectly).
> Then, from your module you use some classes of A (brought to you
> indirectly, so "magically", it compiles).
> So you never explicitly declare the dep on A from your module. If one day
> you remove dependency on B for any reason, you will also loose A (and also
> you can say it's an explicit dependency that is not "explicit", though
it's
> a matter of taste or point of view to consider transitive deps not to be
> explicit ...).
>
> The opposite would be to declare explicit dep on A from your module, while
> you don't need it at all - only B needs it.
>
You get it fully. The question is, could we define in a few word when the
transitivity could be used, because the usage of A is just "because of" B ?
Else, we should add a deps on A as soon as we import any class from A IMO.
>
> >
> > And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a deps
of
xwiki-platform-core ?
It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
Should we remove it ?
Yes we should remove it.
on that, we should remove it ASAP.
>
> > What about deps for logging ?
>
> Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
> feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
> should be enough.
>
> > And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably provided scope)
to a
> high
level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or forget
it,
since it
come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not forbidden
to not go through @Unstable. Plus you are supposed to remove that
annotation after some time.
what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to
agree on a rule.
To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of" is
clear
enough to not create confusion. I also agree with
Sergiu that we should
list all (no warning of used deps not declared in dependency:analysis),
this make the rule clear at least. I am not against factoring common
infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
I'm not sure it relates to what you describe above. Factoring deps in a
common infrastructure is more a matter of using dependencyManagement at
correct level (top-most usually), but the rule to declare only deps that
are really needed per module is a very widely used best practice.
From a contributor (not committer) point of view, it's sometimes annoying
to have to update your builds because of this kind of changes. Obviously it
would be difficult to consider those dependency graphs as APIs :) , but at
the same time when they evolve too frequently, it can be considered painful
to follow by devs in general ...
Some are not impacting, but for example regarding @Unstable, if it's not
brought anymore by xwiki-commons-component-api, it will break my build when
I upgrade xwiki versions.
With Maven, it's not really a "bad" practice, to consider that some poms
are used mainly to bring to you a set of logically related dependencies by
transitivity (there's even the "import" scope, though it's not the
best
sample of good practice I agree). Question is more (case by case), is it
really "bad" to bring @Unstable by default to everyone that develops an
xwiki component, even if he will never use it / don't use it anymore ?
I would be positive, especially because it is not a runtime deps, and we
can simply use the "provided" scope.
Thomas do not seems to agree.
All I really want at the end, is that we have clear rule.
Unless we can define what "because of" is, the only rule I see valid
currently, would be to explicitly depends on any module we do an import
from.
>
> >
> >
> > It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is
> not
> > a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > WDYT ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > > thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > >> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency A
> > > >> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you
> implement
> > > >> an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not
explicitly
> > > >> depend on A.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu>
> wrote:
> > > >> > Hi devs,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a
conclusion,
> > and I
> > > >> have
> > > >> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should
never
> > > silently
> > > >> > depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO
some
> > > >> > exception, see 3). So any undeclared deps found by
> > dependency:analyse
> > > >> > should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent
POV as
> > > well)
> > > >> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
> > > >> > convention-over-configuration
> > > >> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
> > > >> xwiki-commons-stability
> > > >> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> > > >> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency, for
> > exemple,
> > > it
> > > >> > would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api
stop
> > > providing
> > > >> > javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop
providing
> > > junit,
> > > >> > mockito, and al.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and
to
> > always
> > > >> > check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best
would
> be
> > to
> > > >> > enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static
analysis is
> > > >> limited
> > > >> > and could create false positive.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > WDYT ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > > >> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> > > >> > wrote:
> > >
>> >
> > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <
> > vincent(a)massol.net>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > >
>> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> Hi devs,
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze
produces
> interesting
> > > >> results.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> For example:
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO]
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties
3.2-SNAPSHOT
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO]
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >>> …
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO] ---
maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli)
> @
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies
found:
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies
found:
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> > > >> >>
> > > org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> > > >> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> > > org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more
generally for all
> > > others):
> > > >> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps
in the pom.xml
> for
> > > this
> > > >> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in
the
> > > >> component-api
> > > >> >> dep)
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> +1 as well.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the following:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules
having
> > > components
> > > >> >> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had
added the
> > > >> following
> > > >> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to
log - They
> don't
> > > have
> > > >> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > > >> >> > <dependency>
> > > >> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > > >> >> > <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > > >> >> > </dependency>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on
javax.inject in
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that users
of the
> > Component
> > > API
> > > >> >> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > > >> >> > don't have to explicitly add a
dependency on
> > > >> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > > >> >> > <dependency>
> > > >> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > > >> >> >
<artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > > >> >> > <version>1</version>
> > > >> >> > </dependency>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module
depending
> on
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an
explicit dep on
> > > >> >> javax.inject and org.slf4j?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of dependencies,
using slf4j
> > or
> > > >> >> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an
XWiki
> > > >> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > WDYT?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks
> > > >> >> > -Vincent
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared
dependencies found:" doesn't
> > > always
> > > >> >> generate correct results as is the case here. This is
mostly
> > because
> > > >> it's a
> > > >> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will
be
> > considered
> > > >> unused.
> > > >> >> >>> See
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used directly
by us, but
> are
> > > >> needed
> > > >> >> >> transitively by another library. For example,
slf4j needs
> > logback,
> > > >> which
> > > >> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't
really declare it in
> > > every
> > > >> >> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to
pick a
> cache, a
> > > >> >> >> connection pool, validator, and a bytecode
manipulation
> utility.
> > > So
> > > >> yes,
> > > >> >> >> we can safely ignore most of these false
negatives, but we
> > should
> > > >> still
> > > >> >> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully
declared as
> > > >> dependencies.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>> Thanks
> > > >> >> >>> -Vincent
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> >> > devs mailing list
> > > >> >> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > >> >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Thomas Mortagne
> > > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> >> devs mailing list
> > > >> >> devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > >> >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Denis Gervalle
> > > >> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > devs mailing list
> > > >> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Thomas Mortagne
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> devs mailing list
> > > >> devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis Gervalle
> > > > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > devs mailing list
> > > > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Mortagne
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devs mailing list
> > > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Denis Gervalle
> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
6 Jun
6 Jun
8:40 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Cleaning our POM deps by explicitly listing used dependencies?
Le 5 juin 2014 19:44, "Denis Gervalle" <dgl(a)softec.lu> a écrit :
wrote:
?
by
I agree with Thomas, forced dependencies in your build are bad. The only
forced dep I ever used in my root poms is junit, but here the objective was
really to force it ;)
In this case above, it would not be a pom really part of your build, but a
pom to be used as a dependency by devs users of xwiki apis. That's why I
talked about "import" scope, it's the typical use-case for it.
But I agree that in that case it's more maintenance work, additional poms
and deps graphs, so maybe not worth it at all.
I'm not sure I'd do it if I were you, even if I 'd find it nice as
contributor ;)
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jeremie BOUSQUET <
jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 2014-06-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>lu>:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> > >
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu>
> > > > What happen if you also use
dependency A not just because of B ?
> > >
> > > You put a dependency on A.
> > >
> >
> > But you may not see that so easily when you change a few line in an
> > existing module. Nothing will complains until you remove your deps to
B.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > How do you determine "because of B" ?
> > >
> > > By thinking.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I rephrase my question.
> > Could you define what you consider a usage of dependency A because of
B
> and
> > the opposite ?
> >
> >
> If I understood, you depend on B, and by transitivity, you also depend
on A
> (indirectly).
> Then, from your module you use some classes of A (brought to you
> indirectly, so "magically", it compiles).
> So you never explicitly declare the dep on A from your module. If one
day
> you remove dependency on B for any reason, you
will also loose A (and
also
> you can say it's an explicit dependency that
is not "explicit", though
it's
> a matter of taste or point of view to consider
transitive deps not to be
> explicit ...).
>
> The opposite would be to declare explicit dep on A from your module,
while
you don't
need it at all - only B needs it.
You get it fully. The question is, could we define in a few word when the
transitivity could be used, because the usage of A is just "because of" B
Else, we should add a deps on A as soon as we import
any class from A IMO.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And what to you think of xwiki-commons-test-component that is a
deps
> of
> > > > xwiki-platform-core ?
> > >
> > > It's wrong IMO. Any forced dependency is wrong IMO.
> > >
> > > > Should we remove it ?
> > >
> > > Yes we should remove it.
> > >
> >
> > Why do we get it ? Its removal could become an nightmare... but if we
> agree
> > on that, we should remove it ASAP.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > What about deps for logging ?
> > >
> > > Depends how you use it, the logger used with @Inject is an official
> > > feature of our component framework so xwiki-commons-component-api
> > > should be enough.
> > >
> > > > And could we add xwiki-commons-stability (probably provided scope)
> to a
> > > > high level pom to avoid adding/removing it all the time ? (or
forget
> > it,
> > > > since it come with xwiki-commons-component-api currently) ?
> > >
> > > It's far from being used everywhere and there is no rule forcing to
> > > use it, you set @Unstable when an API is unstable, it's not
forbidden
> > > to not go through @Unstable. Plus you
are supposed to remove that
> > > annotation after some time.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, so not deps at any scope in any high level poms. This seems
opposite
> to
> > what Sergiu proposed, but it would be nice to agree on a rule.
> >
> > To sum up, currently I am not sure the exception rule "because of"
is
> clear
> > enough to not create confusion. I also agree with Sergiu that we
should
> > list all (no warning of used deps not
declared in
dependency:analysis),
> > this make the rule clear at least. I am not
against factoring common
> > infrastructure in a single place, but Thomas seems to be clearly -1.
> >
>
> I'm not sure it relates to what you describe above. Factoring deps in a
> common infrastructure is more a matter of using dependencyManagement at
> correct level (top-most usually), but the rule to declare only deps that
> are really needed per module is a very widely used best practice.
>
> From a contributor (not committer) point of view, it's sometimes
annoying
> to have to update your builds because of this
kind of changes.
Obviously it
> would be difficult to consider those dependency
graphs as APIs :) , but
at
> the same time when they evolve too frequently, it
can be considered
painful
> to follow by devs in general ...
> Some are not impacting, but for example regarding @Unstable, if it's not
> brought anymore by xwiki-commons-component-api, it will break my build
when
I upgrade
xwiki versions.
This is bad, since I do not see any reason for xwiki-commons-component-api
to bring xwiki-commons-stability to you.
>
> With Maven, it's not really a "bad" practice, to consider that some
poms
> are used mainly to bring to you a set of logically related dependencies transitivity
(there's even the "import" scope, though it's not the best
sample of good practice I agree). Question is more (case by case), is it
really "bad" to bring @Unstable by default to everyone that develops an
xwiki component, even if he will never use it / don't use it anymore ?
I would be positive, especially because it is not a runtime deps, and we
can simply use the "provided" scope.
Thomas do not seems to agree.
All I really want at the end, is that we have clear rule.
Unless we can define what "because of" is, the only rule I see valid
currently, would be to explicitly depends on any module we do an import
from.
>
> >
> >
> > It would be nice to have more feedback from other committers ! This is
> not
> > a minor aspect of our best practice IMO.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > WDYT ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > > thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> For me the rule to apply is simple: when you require dependency
A
> > > >> because of another dependency B (B expose A in it's API, you
> implement
> > > >> an interface of A to be found by B, etc.) you should not
explicitly
> > > >> depend on A.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > Hi devs,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am reviving this proposal since we never came to a
conclusion,
> > and I
> > > >> have
> > > >> > the feeling that our deps become more and more convoluted.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To resume what I get from past history with my own vision:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) Since our modules are getting really modular, it should
never
> > > silently
> > > >> > depends on transitive dependency of another module (with IMO
some
> > > >> > exception, see 3). So any
undeclared deps found by
> > dependency:analyse
> > > >> > should be explicitly declare in the effective pom (Vincent
POV
as
> > > well)
> > > >> > 2) Apply maven principle, we should reuse and apply
> > > >> > convention-over-configuration
> > > >> > over configuration, so common dependency like slf4j,
> > > >> xwiki-commons-stability
> > > >> > ? ... should be in a high level parent pom
> > > >> > 3) We may rely on some very tight transitive dependency,
for
> > exemple,
> > > it
> > > >> > would be really curious that xwiki-commons-component-api
stop
> > > providing
> > > >> > javax.inject, or that xwki-commons-test-components stop
providing
> > > junit,
> > > >> > mockito, and al.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It would be nice to add those rules in our best practice and
to
> > always
> > > >> > check our pom upon finishing changes in a module. The best
would
> be
> > to
> > > >> > enforce those rules, but this is not easy since static
analysis is
> > > >> limited
> > > >> > and could create false positive.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > WDYT ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > > >> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Vincent Massol <
> > vincent(a)massol.net>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Aug 12, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu
wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> On 08/12/2011 07:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> Hi devs,
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze
produces
> interesting
> > > >> results.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> For example:
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO]
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO]
Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO]
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >>> …
> > > >> >> >>> [INFO] ---
maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze
(default-cli)
> @
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-properties ---
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies
found:
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING] Unused declared dependencies
found:
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> > > >> >>
> > >
org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
> > > >> >> >>>
[WARNING]
> > > >> org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
> > > org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
> > > >> >> >>> [WARNING]
org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> The question is (for this module but more
generally for
all
> > > others):
> > > >> >> >>> * Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps
in the pom.xml
> for
> > > this
> > > >> >> module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found
in the
> > > >> component-api
> > > >> >> dep)
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> I think we should, wdyt?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> +1 as well.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > hmm actually we need to decide about the
following:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > * In order to simplify writing pom.xml for modules
having
> > > components
> > > >> >> (i.e. depending on xwiki-commons-component-api) I had
added
the
> > > >> following
> > > >> >> to xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > <!-- Make it easy for components that wish to
log - They
> don't
> > > have
> > > >> >> to explicitly import SLF4J -->
> > > >> >> > <dependency>
> > > >> >> > <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> > > >> >> >
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> > > >> >> > </dependency>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > * In the same manner we have a dependency on
javax.inject in
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api/pom.xml:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > <!-- We add this dependency here so that
users of the
> > Component
> > > API
> > > >> >> just need to depend on this artifact and
> > > >> >> > don't have to explicitly add a
dependency on
> > > >> >> javax.inject:java.inject. -->
> > > >> >> > <dependency>
> > > >> >> > <groupId>javax.inject</groupId>
> > > >> >> >
<artifactId>javax.inject</artifactId>
> > > >> >> > <version>1</version>
> > > >> >> > </dependency>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > So the question is: do we want to force each module
depending
> on
> > > >> >> xwiki-commons-component-api to have to declare an
explicit
dep on
> > > >> >> javax.inject and
org.slf4j?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I'm not so sure about that…
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm -0 and near -1 to list this kind of
dependencies, using
slf4j
> > or
> > > >> >> javax.inject are what you HAVE TO use when you write an
XWiki
> > > >> >> component so it's redundant from my POV.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > WDYT?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks
> > > >> >> > -Vincent
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> Note that the "Unused declared
dependencies found:"
doesn't
> > > always
> > > >> >> generate correct results as is the case here. This is
mostly
> > because
> > > >> it's a
> > > >> >> static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will
be
> > considered
> > > >> unused.
> > > >> >> >>> See
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Some of these dependencies are not used
directly by us, but
> are
> > > >> needed
> > > >> >> >> transitively by another library. For example,
slf4j needs
> > logback,
> > > >> which
> > > >> >> >> we never use directly (although we don't
really declare it
in
> every
> >> >> >> module that does logging). Hibernate needs us to pick a
cache, a
> >> >> >> connection pool,
validator, and a bytecode manipulation
utility.
So
>> yes,
>> >> >> we can safely ignore most of these false negatives, but we
should
>> still
>> >> >> try to remove those that are really wrongfully declared as
>> dependencies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Thanks
>> >> >>> -Vincent
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > devs mailing list
>> >> > devs(a)xwiki.org
>> >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thomas Mortagne
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> devs mailing list
>> >> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Denis Gervalle
>> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devs mailing list
>> > devs(a)xwiki.org
>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3777
days inactive
4806
days old
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Jeremie BOUSQUET -
Roman Muntyanu -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol