5 Jun
2014
5 Jun
'14
3:51 p.m.
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