You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@maven.apache.org by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> on 2006/06/19 22:05:39 UTC
Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
will it be in 2.0 Final?
Thanks,
Matt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I have put updated poms in
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484 so
they can add them to CVS and people can help mantaining them.
After all that work I don't think is too difficult to build it with
Maven, as you say in the book you can build 2.0-m1.
The good news is that jira issue is the most popular by far ;)
On 6/20/06, Wim Deblauwe <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't they use the work that has been done in the Mergere book?
>
> 2006/6/20, Geoffrey De Smet <ge...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > The good news is I saw Rob Harrop and Juergen using maven 2 in an
> > example application for spring 2 (with the jetty6 plugin etc) at the
> > SpringOne conference, so they are aware of it. When I asked them about
> > it, they said that the spring build is huge and it won't be maven2ized
> > over night, but they seemed to be convinced that it would be a good thing.
> >
> > Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > > guys they are the official ones
> > >
> > > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> > >
> > > You can vote at
> > > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> > >
> > > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> > >
> > > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > >> org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > >> spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > >> for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > >> will it be in 2.0 Final?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > With kind regards,
> > Geoffrey De Smet
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Wim Deblauwe <wi...@gmail.com>.
Can't they use the work that has been done in the Mergere book?
2006/6/20, Geoffrey De Smet <ge...@gmail.com>:
>
> The good news is I saw Rob Harrop and Juergen using maven 2 in an
> example application for spring 2 (with the jetty6 plugin etc) at the
> SpringOne conference, so they are aware of it. When I asked them about
> it, they said that the spring build is huge and it won't be maven2ized
> over night, but they seemed to be convinced that it would be a good thing.
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > guys they are the official ones
> >
> > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> >
> > You can vote at
> > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> >
> > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> >
> > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> >> org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> >> spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> >> for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> >> will it be in 2.0 Final?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> With kind regards,
> Geoffrey De Smet
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Geoffrey De Smet <ge...@gmail.com>.
The good news is I saw Rob Harrop and Juergen using maven 2 in an
example application for spring 2 (with the jetty6 plugin etc) at the
SpringOne conference, so they are aware of it. When I asked them about
it, they said that the spring build is huge and it won't be maven2ized
over night, but they seemed to be convinced that it would be a good thing.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> guys they are the official ones
>
> and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
>
> You can vote at
> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
>
> I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
>
> On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
>> org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
>> spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
>> for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
>> will it be in 2.0 Final?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
--
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
purely informative (at least for now)
that's why I encourage people to use the small jars that are more explicit
On 6/20/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do optional dependencies have any effect at all, or are they purely
> descriptive? Do they play a role in dependency version resolution,
> for instance if they are the "nearest" source of a dependency? Are
> there issues or wiki pages regarding the design of "optional" for
> Maven 2.1?
>
> (A bit off-topic, I suppose, but if Spring is going to have that many
> optional dependencies, I'll be having to deal with it a lot more in
> the future...)
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 6/20/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > only one required, but all the others as optional
> >
> > On 6/20/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here's what the Juergen had to say:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > We tried a number of different jar file arrangements and eventually went
> > > with the all-encompassing spring.jar for 2.0 M5, as alternative to a
> > > combination of fine-grained jars from the "modules" directory. The mock jar
> > > is still separate, sitting alongside either spring.jar or a combination of
> > > fine-grained jars. The same applies to the jar that contains the AspectJ
> > > aspects.
> > >
> > > The line between what's within spring.jar and what's a separate jar was just
> > > becoming too arbitrary, with the various O/R Mapping options on the one hand
> > > and the various web integration options on the other hand. Hence, the
> > > current plan is so stick with the "one-big-jar versus
> > > many-fine-grained-jars" strategy for 2.0 RC1 and final again (just like we
> > > had it in Spring 1.2.x).
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > Because of this, it seems to me that spring-2.0-m5 should have a POM
> > > at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring/2.0-m5/
> > > with a single dependency - commons-logging. True?
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On 6/19/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > > > guys they are the official ones
> > > >
> > > > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> > > >
> > > > You can vote at
> > > > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> > > >
> > > > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> > > >
> > > > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > > > > org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > > > > spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > > > > for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > > > > will it be in 2.0 Final?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > > > -- The Princess Bride
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > -- The Princess Bride
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Stephen Duncan Jr
> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
Do optional dependencies have any effect at all, or are they purely
descriptive? Do they play a role in dependency version resolution,
for instance if they are the "nearest" source of a dependency? Are
there issues or wiki pages regarding the design of "optional" for
Maven 2.1?
(A bit off-topic, I suppose, but if Spring is going to have that many
optional dependencies, I'll be having to deal with it a lot more in
the future...)
-Stephen
On 6/20/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> only one required, but all the others as optional
>
> On 6/20/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's what the Juergen had to say:
> >
> > <quote>
> > We tried a number of different jar file arrangements and eventually went
> > with the all-encompassing spring.jar for 2.0 M5, as alternative to a
> > combination of fine-grained jars from the "modules" directory. The mock jar
> > is still separate, sitting alongside either spring.jar or a combination of
> > fine-grained jars. The same applies to the jar that contains the AspectJ
> > aspects.
> >
> > The line between what's within spring.jar and what's a separate jar was just
> > becoming too arbitrary, with the various O/R Mapping options on the one hand
> > and the various web integration options on the other hand. Hence, the
> > current plan is so stick with the "one-big-jar versus
> > many-fine-grained-jars" strategy for 2.0 RC1 and final again (just like we
> > had it in Spring 1.2.x).
> > </quote>
> >
> > Because of this, it seems to me that spring-2.0-m5 should have a POM
> > at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring/2.0-m5/
> > with a single dependency - commons-logging. True?
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On 6/19/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > > guys they are the official ones
> > >
> > > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> > >
> > > You can vote at
> > > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> > >
> > > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> > >
> > > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > > > org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > > > spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > > > for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > > > will it be in 2.0 Final?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > > -- The Princess Bride
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
only one required, but all the others as optional
On 6/20/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's what the Juergen had to say:
>
> <quote>
> We tried a number of different jar file arrangements and eventually went
> with the all-encompassing spring.jar for 2.0 M5, as alternative to a
> combination of fine-grained jars from the "modules" directory. The mock jar
> is still separate, sitting alongside either spring.jar or a combination of
> fine-grained jars. The same applies to the jar that contains the AspectJ
> aspects.
>
> The line between what's within spring.jar and what's a separate jar was just
> becoming too arbitrary, with the various O/R Mapping options on the one hand
> and the various web integration options on the other hand. Hence, the
> current plan is so stick with the "one-big-jar versus
> many-fine-grained-jars" strategy for 2.0 RC1 and final again (just like we
> had it in Spring 1.2.x).
> </quote>
>
> Because of this, it seems to me that spring-2.0-m5 should have a POM
> at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring/2.0-m5/
> with a single dependency - commons-logging. True?
>
> Matt
>
> On 6/19/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > guys they are the official ones
> >
> > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> >
> > You can vote at
> > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> >
> > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> >
> > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > > org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > > spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > > for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > > will it be in 2.0 Final?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > -- The Princess Bride
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
Here's what the Juergen had to say:
<quote>
We tried a number of different jar file arrangements and eventually went
with the all-encompassing spring.jar for 2.0 M5, as alternative to a
combination of fine-grained jars from the "modules" directory. The mock jar
is still separate, sitting alongside either spring.jar or a combination of
fine-grained jars. The same applies to the jar that contains the AspectJ
aspects.
The line between what's within spring.jar and what's a separate jar was just
becoming too arbitrary, with the various O/R Mapping options on the one hand
and the various web integration options on the other hand. Hence, the
current plan is so stick with the "one-big-jar versus
many-fine-grained-jars" strategy for 2.0 RC1 and final again (just like we
had it in Spring 1.2.x).
</quote>
Because of this, it seems to me that spring-2.0-m5 should have a POM
at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring/2.0-m5/
with a single dependency - commons-logging. True?
Matt
On 6/19/06, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> guys they are the official ones
>
> and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
>
> You can vote at
> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
>
> I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
>
> On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > will it be in 2.0 Final?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Spring 2.0 M4 vs. M5
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
guys they are the official ones
and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
You can vote at
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> will it be in 2.0 Final?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org