On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can we make <optional>true</optional> by
default?
Or what I mean can we have instead a <mandatory>true</mandatory> instead of
<optional>?
That would be a very bad idea. In most cases (flavor are really not
most cases) you require the dependencies you indicated.
I fear that devs will forget to put <optional>. Again this matters for
builds that group modules as dependencies, although are not really needed.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> So we now have the concept of optional dependencies at Extension
> Manager level. This are dependencies that are installed by default
> (but if they fail they don't fail the whole install) and which can be
> uninstalled without any impact on what is no longer it's backward
> dependency.
>
> On Maven -> EM side what I did is reuse <optional>true</optional>
> mostly the following reason: there is no way in pom.xml to put custom
> stuff in <dependency> so it would be a huge pain to maintain a list of
> optional dependencies from a property at general pom level.
>
> The issue is that the behavior of this <optional> is not exactly the
> same in EM and Maven: in Maven those dependencies are NOT triggered by
> default. Still, apart from this it's supposed to be the same meaning
> and it should not be an issue to install this dependency (if it is
> then it means you should have used something else like
> <scope>provided</scope>) but as usually since there is no official way
> in Maven to say "I just want to use that during the build and it does
> not make any sens to get this dependency" some projects may have used
> it that way.
>
> So do you think it is OK ? It's not acceptable and we absolutely need
> to move this kind of information in some general property in the pom
> <properties> ?
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
--
Thomas Mortagne