Should we emphasize the usage of our Bill of Material pom?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

See for example any of the guides at Arquillian <
http://arquillian.org/guides/>. Using a BOM pom is handy as a way to keep
dependency groups in sync. It also allows for smaller pom.xml files. I'm
not sure what an equivalent script would be using Ivy, but that sort of
documentation and support might be rather useful as well.

I'll make the changes in a branch to show what I mean.

-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Should we emphasize the usage of our Bill of Material pom?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

Also, the BOM is handy when you want to use Flume. Our projects at work use various logger frameworks right now, so being able to pull in all the bindings consistently is a nice feature.

Also, if you use independent package or bundle versions in an OSGi environment, I could see a BOM being a handy concept.

Matt Sicker

> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:09, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Just for grins, do you know who added "import" scope (and hence, support for BOM poms) to Maven?   
> 
> BOM poms are quite useful when you have a set of projects that are independently versioned, but when they all have the same version the usefulness disappears as you will typically just define a variable such as log4j.version, assign it a value, and then use it on all the Log4j dependencies. Yes, you can just specify the BOM pom in the dependency management section, but in the vast majority of cases I would expect users are only going to use 2 or 3 Log4j jars.
> 
> Ironically, I created import scope because we had a project where the individual subprojects were independently versioned. When we switched to have them all use the same version we dropped the BOM pom.
> 
> Fro these reasons I don't think we need to emphasize using the BOM pom. At the same time, I don't see a problem mentioning it with an example in the Maven section of the doc.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> See for example any of the guides at Arquillian <http://arquillian.org/guides/>. Using a BOM pom is handy as a way to keep dependency groups in sync. It also allows for smaller pom.xml files. I'm not sure what an equivalent script would be using Ivy, but that sort of documentation and support might be rather useful as well.
>> 
>> I'll make the changes in a branch to show what I mean.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Should we emphasize the usage of our Bill of Material pom?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

Haha that's awesome! Small world. I already added documentation about the BOM to the maven page.

Matt Sicker

> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:09, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Just for grins, do you know who added "import" scope (and hence, support for BOM poms) to Maven?   
> 
> BOM poms are quite useful when you have a set of projects that are independently versioned, but when they all have the same version the usefulness disappears as you will typically just define a variable such as log4j.version, assign it a value, and then use it on all the Log4j dependencies. Yes, you can just specify the BOM pom in the dependency management section, but in the vast majority of cases I would expect users are only going to use 2 or 3 Log4j jars.
> 
> Ironically, I created import scope because we had a project where the individual subprojects were independently versioned. When we switched to have them all use the same version we dropped the BOM pom.
> 
> Fro these reasons I don't think we need to emphasize using the BOM pom. At the same time, I don't see a problem mentioning it with an example in the Maven section of the doc.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> See for example any of the guides at Arquillian <http://arquillian.org/guides/>. Using a BOM pom is handy as a way to keep dependency groups in sync. It also allows for smaller pom.xml files. I'm not sure what an equivalent script would be using Ivy, but that sort of documentation and support might be rather useful as well.
>> 
>> I'll make the changes in a branch to show what I mean.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Should we emphasize the usage of our Bill of Material pom?

[Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>]

Just for grins, do you know who added "import" scope (and hence, support for BOM poms) to Maven?   

BOM poms are quite useful when you have a set of projects that are independently versioned, but when they all have the same version the usefulness disappears as you will typically just define a variable such as log4j.version, assign it a value, and then use it on all the Log4j dependencies. Yes, you can just specify the BOM pom in the dependency management section, but in the vast majority of cases I would expect users are only going to use 2 or 3 Log4j jars.

Ironically, I created import scope because we had a project where the individual subprojects were independently versioned. When we switched to have them all use the same version we dropped the BOM pom.

Fro these reasons I don't think we need to emphasize using the BOM pom. At the same time, I don't see a problem mentioning it with an example in the Maven section of the doc.

Ralph

> On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> See for example any of the guides at Arquillian <http://arquillian.org/guides/>. Using a BOM pom is handy as a way to keep dependency groups in sync. It also allows for smaller pom.xml files. I'm not sure what an equivalent script would be using Ivy, but that sort of documentation and support might be rather useful as well.
> 
> I'll make the changes in a branch to show what I mean.
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>