You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@maven.apache.org by Aaron Zeckoski <aa...@vt.edu> on 2007/11/14 23:51:56 UTC
2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link
children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so:
...
<groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
<artifactId>base</artifactId>
<packaging>pom</packaging>
...
<modules>
<module>alias</module>
</modules>
...
Then the child defines a parent like so:
...
<parent>
<artifactId>base</artifactId>
<groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
<version>M2</version>
<relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
</parent>
...
As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
know about each other.
This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are
we doing something dumb here?
Sample parent here: https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml
Sample child here:
https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
Thanks for the help!
-AZ
--
Aaron Zeckoski (aaronz@vt.edu)
Senior Research Engineer - CARET - Cambridge University
[http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/~aaronz/]
Sakai Fellow - [http://aaronz-sakai.blogspot.com/]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at>.
Understood, but if you have dependencies to you sibling-modules, you'd have
the same problem...
So, I'd personally always build from the root-project after a fresh
check-out... And from then on it wouldn't be necessary to use the
relativePath.
Still, I understand your reasoning and I agree it's probably the best solution
in your scenario.
On Thursday 15 November 2007 15:25, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
> > True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute?
> > This
> > shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here?
>
> say you've just checked out a fresh project tree from svn - it's not yet
> been
> released to any remote repository, and you have a clean local repository.
>
> if you went to a sub-folder and tried "mvn install" it would complain about
> not
> finding the parent POM (because it's not the same as the containing ".."
> POM)
>
> the relativePath attribute tells Maven where to find the POM if it can't
> find it
> in the local or remote repositories - note that if the parent is the same
> as the containing POM then you shouldn't need to use relativePath
>
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html#Ex
>ample_2
>
> HTH
>
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> > > On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
> > > > How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least
> >
> > remove
> >
> > > > the 'modules'-part in your base-POM...
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency.
> > >
> > > also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing'
> > > POM (ie. the one with the modules)
> > >
> > > for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement,
> > > pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms'
> > > directory) and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have
> > > module POMs just to support building from the root, not for inheriting
> > > settings.
> > >
> > > ie:
> > >
> > > pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B)
> > >
> > > \__ poms / pom.xml
> > >
> > > \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
> > >
> > > \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
> > >
> > > this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a
> > > single
> > > tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different
> > > parent, and they won't disturb each other.
> > >
> > > the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that
> >
> > builds
> >
> > > can
> > > work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin
> >
> > for
> >
> > > this)
> > >
> > > On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > > > If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the
> >
> > 'modules'-tag,
> >
> > > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > children DO NOT get build.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
> > > > > everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we
> > > > > need the information in the parent when the child is being built.
> > > > > As a result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency
> > > > > (at
> >
> > least
> >
> > > > > according to what I could understand from the maven site and the
> >
> > maven
> >
> > > > > book).
> > > > >
> > > > > In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > > the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
> > > > > about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree
> >
> > and
> >
> > > > > it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children
> >
> > only
> >
> > > > > knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
> > > > > properties and shared dependencies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight
> >
> > coupling
> >
> > > > > in maven 2 though.
> > > > > I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to
> > > >
> > > > correct
> > > >
> > > > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > -AZ
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this
> >
> > way. I
> >
> > > > do
> > > >
> > > > > > however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty
> > > > > > extensive if I recall correctly...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > > > > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to
> > > > > > > link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of
> > > > > > > modules)
> > > >
> > > > like
> > > >
> > > > > > > so: ...
> > > > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > > > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > <modules>
> > > > > > > <module>alias</module>
> > > > > > > </modules>
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > <parent>
> > > > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > > > <version>M2</version>
> > > > > > > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > > > > > > </parent>
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these
> >
> > POMs
> >
> > > > > > > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs
> > > > > > > have
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > > > > know about each other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might
> >
> > misunderstand.
> >
> > > > Are
> > > >
> > > > > > > we doing something dumb here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sample parent here:
> > > > > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xmlSam
> > > > > > >ple child here:
> >
> > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the help!
> > > > > > > -AZ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Roland Asmann
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > > > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > > > > A-1010 Wien
> > > > > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > > > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > > > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > > > > Web: www.cfc.at
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Roland Asmann
> > > >
> > > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > > A-1010 Wien
> > > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > > >
> > > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > > Web: www.cfc.at
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> > --
> > Roland Asmann
> >
> > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > A-1010 Wien
> > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> >
> > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > Web: www.cfc.at
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
--
Roland Asmann
CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
A-1010 Wien
FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
Web: www.cfc.at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <st...@jayway.net>.
On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
>
> True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute?
> This
> shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here?
say you've just checked out a fresh project tree from svn - it's not yet
been
released to any remote repository, and you have a clean local repository.
if you went to a sub-folder and tried "mvn install" it would complain about
not
finding the parent POM (because it's not the same as the containing ".."
POM)
the relativePath attribute tells Maven where to find the POM if it can't
find it
in the local or remote repositories - note that if the parent is the same as
the containing POM then you shouldn't need to use relativePath
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html#Example_2
HTH
On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> > On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
> > > How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least
> remove
> > > the 'modules'-part in your base-POM...
> > >
> > > Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency.
> >
> > also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM
> > (ie. the one with the modules)
> >
> > for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement,
> > pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory)
> > and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs
> > just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings.
> >
> > ie:
> >
> > pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B)
> >
> > \__ poms / pom.xml
> >
> > \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
> >
> > \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
> >
> > this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a
> > single
> > tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different
> > parent, and they won't disturb each other.
> >
> > the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that
> builds
> > can
> > work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin
> for
> > this)
> >
> > On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > > If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the
> 'modules'-tag,
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > children DO NOT get build.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
> > > > everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need
> > > > the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a
> > > > result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at
> least
> > > > according to what I could understand from the maven site and the
> maven
> > > > book).
> > > >
> > > > In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so
> that
> > > > the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
> > > > about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree
> and
> > > > it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children
> only
> > > > knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
> > > > properties and shared dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight
> coupling
> > > > in maven 2 though.
> > > > I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to
> > >
> > > correct
> > >
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > -AZ
> > > >
> > > > > Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this
> way. I
> > >
> > > do
> > >
> > > > > however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty
> > > > > extensive if I recall correctly...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > > > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to
> > > > > > link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules)
> > >
> > > like
> > >
> > > > > > so: ...
> > > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > <modules>
> > > > > > <module>alias</module>
> > > > > > </modules>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > <parent>
> > > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > > <version>M2</version>
> > > > > > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > > > > > </parent>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these
> POMs
> > > > > > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have
> to
> > > > > > know about each other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might
> misunderstand.
> > >
> > > Are
> > >
> > > > > > we doing something dumb here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sample parent here:
> > > > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xmlSample
> > > > > > child here:
> > > > > >
> https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the help!
> > > > > > -AZ
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roland Asmann
> > > > >
> > > > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > > > A-1010 Wien
> > > > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > > > >
> > > > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > > > Web: www.cfc.at
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roland Asmann
> > >
> > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > A-1010 Wien
> > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > >
> > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > Web: www.cfc.at
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
> --
> Roland Asmann
>
> CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> A-1010 Wien
> FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
>
> Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> Web: www.cfc.at
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at>.
True. One question though: why do you use the 'relativePath'-attribute? This
shouldn't be really necessary, or am I missing something here?
On Thursday 15 November 2007 14:35, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
> > How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove
> > the 'modules'-part in your base-POM...
> >
> > Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency.
>
> also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM
> (ie. the one with the modules)
>
> for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement,
> pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory)
> and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs
> just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings.
>
> ie:
>
> pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B)
>
> \__ poms / pom.xml
>
> \__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
>
> \__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
>
> this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a
> single
> tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different
> parent, and they won't disturb each other.
>
> the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds
> can
> work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for
> this)
>
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag,
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > children DO NOT get build.
> > >
> > > Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
> > > everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need
> > > the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a
> > > result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least
> > > according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven
> > > book).
> > >
> > > In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that
> > > the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
> > > about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and
> > > it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only
> > > knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
> > > properties and shared dependencies.
> > >
> > > I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling
> > > in maven 2 though.
> > > I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to
> >
> > correct
> >
> > > me.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > -AZ
> > >
> > > > Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I
> >
> > do
> >
> > > > however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty
> > > > extensive if I recall correctly...
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to
> > > > > link children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> > > > >
> > > > > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules)
> >
> > like
> >
> > > > > so: ...
> > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > <modules>
> > > > > <module>alias</module>
> > > > > </modules>
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > <parent>
> > > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > > <version>M2</version>
> > > > > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > > > > </parent>
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
> > > > > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
> > > > > know about each other.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand.
> >
> > Are
> >
> > > > > we doing something dumb here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sample parent here:
> > > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample
> > > > > child here:
> > > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the help!
> > > > > -AZ
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Roland Asmann
> > > >
> > > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > > A-1010 Wien
> > > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > > >
> > > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > > Web: www.cfc.at
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> > --
> > Roland Asmann
> >
> > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > A-1010 Wien
> > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> >
> > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > Web: www.cfc.at
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
--
Roland Asmann
CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
A-1010 Wien
FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
Web: www.cfc.at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <st...@jayway.net>.
On 15/11/2007, Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at> wrote:
>
> How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove
> the 'modules'-part in your base-POM...
>
> Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency.
also note the parent doesn't have to be the same as the 'containing' POM
(ie. the one with the modules)
for example, some projects place settings like dependencyManagement,
pluginManagement, etc. in a separate POM (say inside a 'poms' directory)
and have all sub-projects use this as their parent, and have module POMs
just to support building from the root, not for inheriting settings.
ie:
pom.xml (has modules: poms, A, B)
|
\__ poms / pom.xml
|
\__ A / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
|
\__ B / pom.xml (has poms as parent, relativePath ../poms)
this can be really useful when you have various project types inside a
single
tree, because each sub-project can inherit settings from a different parent,
and they won't disturb each other.
the only tricky part is keeping the relativePath up-to-date, so that builds
can
work from any part of a check-out project tree... (I use my own plugin for
this)
On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag,
> the
> > > children DO NOT get build.
> >
> > Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
> > everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need
> > the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a
> > result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least
> > according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven
> > book).
> >
> > In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that
> > the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
> > about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and
> > it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only
> > knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
> > properties and shared dependencies.
> >
> > I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling
> > in maven 2 though.
> > I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to
> correct
> > me.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -AZ
> >
> > > Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I
> do
> > > however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty
> > > extensive if I recall correctly...
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link
> > > > children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> > > >
> > > > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules)
> like
> > > > so: ...
> > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > > > ...
> > > > <modules>
> > > > <module>alias</module>
> > > > </modules>
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > > > ...
> > > > <parent>
> > > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > > <version>M2</version>
> > > > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > > > </parent>
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
> > > > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
> > > > know about each other.
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand.
> Are
> > > > we doing something dumb here?
> > > >
> > > > Sample parent here:
> > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample
> > > > child here:
> > > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the help!
> > > > -AZ
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roland Asmann
> > >
> > > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > > A-1010 Wien
> > > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> > >
> > > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > > Web: www.cfc.at
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
> --
> Roland Asmann
>
> CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> A-1010 Wien
> FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
>
> Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> Web: www.cfc.at
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at>.
How about re-writing the plugin to Maven2? Then you can at least remove
the 'modules'-part in your base-POM...
Otherwise I'm afraid you're indeed stuck with the 2-way dependency.
On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:34, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the
> > children DO NOT get build.
>
> Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
> everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need
> the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a
> result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least
> according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven
> book).
>
> In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that
> the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
> about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and
> it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only
> knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
> properties and shared dependencies.
>
> I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling
> in maven 2 though.
> I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct
> me.
>
> :-)
>
> -AZ
>
> > Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do
> > however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty
> > extensive if I recall correctly...
> >
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link
> > > children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> > >
> > > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like
> > > so: ...
> > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > > ...
> > > <modules>
> > > <module>alias</module>
> > > </modules>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > > ...
> > > <parent>
> > > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > > <version>M2</version>
> > > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > > </parent>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
> > > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
> > > know about each other.
> > >
> > > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are
> > > we doing something dumb here?
> > >
> > > Sample parent here:
> > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample
> > > child here:
> > > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> > >
> > > Thanks for the help!
> > > -AZ
> >
> > --
> > Roland Asmann
> >
> > CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> > Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> > A-1010 Wien
> > FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
> >
> > Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> > Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> > Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> > Web: www.cfc.at
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
--
Roland Asmann
CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
A-1010 Wien
FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
Web: www.cfc.at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Aaron Zeckoski <aa...@vt.edu>.
> If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the
> children DO NOT get build.
Yeah, we want to be able to build from either the parent (and build
everything) or from the child (and just build the child) but we need
the information in the parent when the child is being built. As a
result, it looks like we are stuck with the 2-way dependency (at least
according to what I could understand from the maven site and the maven
book).
In maven1 we created a plugin which would walk the source tree so that
the parents did not have to know about the children. The nice thing
about this is that you could drop a new project in the source tree and
it would get picked up and built automatically. All the children only
knew about one single master POM which provided them with a set of
properties and shared dependencies.
I think we are going to have to just be stuck with the tight coupling
in maven 2 though.
I would be happy to know I am wrong on this though so feel free to correct me.
:-)
-AZ
> Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do
> however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if
> I recall correctly...
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> > Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link
> > children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
> >
> > The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so:
> > ...
> > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > <packaging>pom</packaging>
> > ...
> > <modules>
> > <module>alias</module>
> > </modules>
> > ...
> >
> > Then the child defines a parent like so:
> > ...
> > <parent>
> > <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> > <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> > <version>M2</version>
> > <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> > </parent>
> > ...
> >
> > As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
> > which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
> > know about each other.
> >
> > This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are
> > we doing something dumb here?
> >
> > Sample parent here:
> > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child
> > here:
> > https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
> >
> > Thanks for the help!
> > -AZ
>
> --
> Roland Asmann
>
> CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
> Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
> A-1010 Wien
> FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
>
> Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
> Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
> Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
> Web: www.cfc.at
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Aaron Zeckoski (aaronz@vt.edu)
Senior Research Engineer - CARET - Cambridge University
[http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/~aaronz/]
Sakai Fellow - [http://aaronz-sakai.blogspot.com/]
Re: 2 way parent-module POM dependency required?
Posted by Roland Asmann <Ro...@cfc.at>.
No, this is not a must... You can link either way if you want, but there's
several things you have to consider:
If you build the 'parent' and it does not contain the 'modules'-tag, the
children DO NOT get build.
Just play around with it a bit, Maven is very flexible in this way. I do
however believe it is described in the documentation, and pretty extensive if
I recall correctly...
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:51, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> Is the 2-way parent/module dependency actually the right way to link
> children and parent POMs? This is what we currently have:
>
> The parent includes definition of a module (or group of modules) like so:
> ...
> <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> <packaging>pom</packaging>
> ...
> <modules>
> <module>alias</module>
> </modules>
> ...
>
> Then the child defines a parent like so:
> ...
> <parent>
> <artifactId>base</artifactId>
> <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
> <version>M2</version>
> <relativePath>../pom.xml</relativePath>
> </parent>
> ...
>
> As a result, we end up with this 2-way linkage bewteen these POMs
> which ends up not being very flexible since all of the POMs have to
> know about each other.
>
> This seems to be what the docs indicate but I might misunderstand. Are
> we doing something dumb here?
>
> Sample parent here:
> https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/pom.xml Sample child
> here:
> https://source.sakaiproject.org/contrib/caret/kernel/alias/pom.xml
>
> Thanks for the help!
> -AZ
--
Roland Asmann
CFC Informationssysteme Entwicklungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Bäckerstrasse 1/2/7
A-1010 Wien
FN 266155f, Handelsgericht Wien
Tel.: +43/1/513 88 77 - 27
Fax.: +43/1/513 88 62
Email: Roland.Asmann@cfc.at
Web: www.cfc.at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org