You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> on 2006/03/11 08:58:26 UTC
[Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Emmanuel,
Don't get alarmed but I had to revert those changes upgrading to the
latest nlog4j. I reverted because it introduced dependencies on a slew
of SUN jars that I cannot possibly put into a Maven repo without having
interpol knocking on my door. Yeah I wish I was living in Paris ok!
Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he can
change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0 slf4j
compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar, activation, mail,
and I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd stick
with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's unaware of it
creeping in again.
Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
Alex
P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Emmanuel,
>
> Don't get alarmed but I had to revert those changes upgrading to the
> latest nlog4j. I reverted because it introduced dependencies on a
> slew of SUN jars that I cannot possibly put into a Maven repo without
> having interpol knocking on my door. Yeah I wish I was living in
> Paris ok! Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see
> if he can change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0
> slf4j compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar, activation,
> mail, and I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
>
> This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd stick
> with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's unaware of it
> creeping in again.
>
> Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
> Alex
>
> P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
This bit of knowledge may help....
required artifacts missing:
com.sun.jdmk:jmxtools:jar:1.2
javax.mail:mail:jar:1.3.2
com.sun.jmx:jmxri:jar:1.2
javax.jms:jms:jar:1.1
javax.activation:activation:jar:1.0.2
Alex
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Luke Taylor <ne...@freesurf.ch>.
Hi,
You can add a scope tag to the dependencies in the log4j pom to control
how they are used by other projects:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html
mail, activation, jmx etc. would have scope "provided" for example.
It looks like it doesn't have any scope settings at the moment.
Luke.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> ...
>
> [1]
> http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>
>
>> Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>> Alex
>>
>> P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
>
> I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
>
> First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not, is it
> possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
>
>
--
Luke Taylor. Monkey Machine Ltd.
PGP Key ID: 0x57E9523C http://www.monkeymachine.ltd.uk
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <li...@qos.ch>.
At 07:24 PM 3/13/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>Hmmm going on a couple days of no sleep here so I might be babbling.
>Take my comments with a grain of salt.
Your one before last message sent at 5 AM, and the this one sent at 13 PM I
was starting to wonder about your capability to skip sleep.
Thanks for your answer. For the time being I am going to opt for adding a
<scope> element. If that does not work, I'll remove the dependencies.
Cheers,
>HTH,
>Alex
>
>P.S. If/when you change your pom though, make sure you bump your
>revision number to say 1.2.24 because people will have already pulled
>down your old non-snapshot pom: you'll want to leave your old pom there
>as is.
Yep, good catch.
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <li...@qos.ch>.
Carlos Sanchez has finished uploading NLOG4J 1.2.24. The new POM should
hopefully be less problematic.
At 09:13 PM 3/13/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>>
>>New Maven bundle should fix the problem. For more details see
>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-779
>>
>Thanks very much Ceki for moving so quickly on this.
>
>Alex
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> New Maven bundle should fix the problem. For more details see
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-779
>
>
Thanks very much Ceki for moving so quickly on this.
Alex
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <li...@qos.ch>.
New Maven bundle should fix the problem. For more details see
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-779
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> To begin, I am sorry about the hassle this upgrade is causing. Looking
> at the Maven repository at ibiblio, it seems that they (ibiblio) are
> publishing the pom files without modification [1].
>
> Here are some details about the process for building the jar file for
> ibiblio:
>
> - NLOG4J does not use Maven itself,
> - The jar file used for the Maven (Ibiblio) upload requests gets
> assembled by an Ant build file [2].
> - It uses the pom file defined in [3].
>
> [1] http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.slf4j/poms/
> [2] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/ibiblio.xml
> [3] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml
>
> At this stage I am tempted to simply delete the dependency tags in
> NLOG4J's pom file. I could also add a <scope>provided</scope> element
> in each appropriate dependency. Which alternative do you think is better?
Hmmm going on a couple days of no sleep here so I might be babbling.
Take my comments with a grain of salt.
If you exclude these dependencies then m2 should not require them to be
present for nlog4j dependent projects: this is the simplest case. WRT
nlog4j dependent projects the net effect is pretty much the same as
marking these dependencies as provided: nlog4j dependent projects would
not include these SUN API jars as dependencies. The only reason why you
may want to mark them as having the provided scope is for your nlog4j
build process. Meaning if you must compile these classes which depend
on SUN API's then these jars must be present. That is if you used m2 but
you don't.
So in conclusion the approach does not really matter. You can remove
the deps or include them and mark them with the provided scope. Now I
don't know if there is some benefit for publishing the fact that you
have classes depending on these SUN artifacts by including them in your
pom. You might want to get some recommendations from the maven peeps on
this. They certainly have more vision than I do.
HTH,
Alex
P.S. If/when you change your pom though, make sure you bump your
revision number to say 1.2.24 because people will have already pulled
down your old non-snapshot pom: you'll want to leave your old pom there
as is.
>
> At 05:11 PM 3/13/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> Ceki,
>>
>>
>> My comments are inline...
>>
>> Gülcü wrote:
>>> At 08:58 AM 3/11/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he
>>>> can change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0
>>>> slf4j compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar,
>>>> activation, mail, and I think I even saw Maven download my mother
>>>> in law.
>>>
>>>> This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd
>>>> stick with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's
>>>> unaware of it creeping in again.
>>>
>>> No, I am not aware of jmx, activation, mail... jar files creeping in
>>> as requirements downstream. Those files are required for compiling
>>> NLOG4J (as well as log4j) but compiling log4j/nlog4j should not be
>>> an ADS concern. NLOG4J SVN repository [1] indicates that the
>>> NLOG4J's POM file has not changed since 28th of August 2005. You
>>> also mentioned that ADS was currently using 1.2.19 which was
>>> released around December 2005. Given that NLOG4J's POM file has not
>>> changed between 1.2.19 and 1.2.23, there is nothing to revert, is
>>> there?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>>>
>> Hmmm that's very odd. Something had to change. Looks like this is a
>> Maven 1 pom. So someone put together the Maven 2 pom for you at
>> ibiblio without considering the scope of the dependencies. In maven
>> 2 you can control dependency scope. Meaning you can make things
>> dependent for test, or just compile stages of the lifecycle. Namely
>> here these dependencies should be of the provided scope I think: if
>> they are used then the jars are provided. Brett Porter would know
>> best but I hate to bug the guy :).
>>>> Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
>>>
>>> I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
>>>
>>> First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not,
>>> is it possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
>> Yeah there is with Maven 2 and apparent this is what has been
>> misconfigured by who ever put deployed the nlog4j jar. The
>> dependencies for sun jars should always be provided I "think" to
>> prevent their transitivity. Incidentally our build uses maven 2.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <li...@qos.ch>.
Alex,
To begin, I am sorry about the hassle this upgrade is causing. Looking at
the Maven repository at ibiblio, it seems that they (ibiblio) are
publishing the pom files without modification [1].
Here are some details about the process for building the jar file for ibiblio:
- NLOG4J does not use Maven itself,
- The jar file used for the Maven (Ibiblio) upload requests gets assembled
by an Ant build file [2].
- It uses the pom file defined in [3].
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.slf4j/poms/
[2] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/ibiblio.xml
[3] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml
At this stage I am tempted to simply delete the dependency tags in NLOG4J's
pom file. I could also add a <scope>provided</scope> element in each
appropriate dependency. Which alternative do you think is better?
At 05:11 PM 3/13/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>Ceki,
>
>
>My comments are inline...
>
>Gülcü wrote:
>>At 08:58 AM 3/11/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>>Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he can
>>>change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0 slf4j
>>>compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar, activation, mail,
>>>and I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
>>
>>>This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd stick
>>>with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's unaware of it
>>>creeping in again.
>>
>>No, I am not aware of jmx, activation, mail... jar files creeping in as
>>requirements downstream. Those files are required for compiling NLOG4J
>>(as well as log4j) but compiling log4j/nlog4j should not be an ADS
>>concern. NLOG4J SVN repository [1] indicates that the NLOG4J's POM file
>>has not changed since 28th of August 2005. You also mentioned that ADS
>>was currently using 1.2.19 which was released around December 2005. Given
>>that NLOG4J's POM file has not changed between 1.2.19 and 1.2.23, there
>>is nothing to revert, is there?
>>
>>[1]
>>http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>Hmmm that's very odd. Something had to change. Looks like this is a
>Maven 1 pom. So someone put together the Maven 2 pom for you at ibiblio
>without considering the scope of the dependencies. In maven 2 you can
>control dependency scope. Meaning you can make things dependent for test,
>or just compile stages of the lifecycle. Namely here these dependencies
>should be of the provided scope I think: if they are used then the jars
>are provided. Brett Porter would know best but I hate to bug the guy :).
>>>Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>>>Alex
>>>
>>>P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
>>
>>I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
>>
>>First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not, is it
>>possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
>Yeah there is with Maven 2 and apparent this is what has been
>misconfigured by who ever put deployed the nlog4j jar. The dependencies
>for sun jars should always be provided I "think" to prevent their
>transitivity. Incidentally our build uses maven 2.
>
>Alex
>
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Ceki,
My comments are inline...
Gülcü wrote:
> At 08:58 AM 3/11/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he can
>> change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0 slf4j
>> compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar, activation,
>> mail, and I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
>
>> This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd
>> stick with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's unaware
>> of it creeping in again.
>
> No, I am not aware of jmx, activation, mail... jar files creeping in
> as requirements downstream. Those files are required for compiling
> NLOG4J (as well as log4j) but compiling log4j/nlog4j should not be an
> ADS concern. NLOG4J SVN repository [1] indicates that the NLOG4J's POM
> file has not changed since 28th of August 2005. You also mentioned
> that ADS was currently using 1.2.19 which was released around December
> 2005. Given that NLOG4J's POM file has not changed between 1.2.19 and
> 1.2.23, there is nothing to revert, is there?
>
> [1]
> http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>
>
Hmmm that's very odd. Something had to change. Looks like this is a
Maven 1 pom. So someone put together the Maven 2 pom for you at ibiblio
without considering the scope of the dependencies. In maven 2 you can
control dependency scope. Meaning you can make things dependent for
test, or just compile stages of the lifecycle. Namely here these
dependencies should be of the provided scope I think: if they are used
then the jars are provided. Brett Porter would know best but I hate to
bug the guy :).
>> Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>> Alex
>>
>> P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
>
> I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
>
> First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not, is
> it possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
Yeah there is with Maven 2 and apparent this is what has been
misconfigured by who ever put deployed the nlog4j jar. The dependencies
for sun jars should always be provided I "think" to prevent their
transitivity. Incidentally our build uses maven 2.
Alex
Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <li...@qos.ch>.
At 08:58 AM 3/11/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he can
>change his pom. At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0 slf4j
>compatible nlog4j. It adds things like the jmx jar, activation, mail, and
>I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
>This happened once before and Ceki reverted. I don't think he'd stick
>with this so we just need to talk to him. Perhaps he's unaware of it
>creeping in again.
No, I am not aware of jmx, activation, mail... jar files creeping in as
requirements downstream. Those files are required for compiling NLOG4J (as
well as log4j) but compiling log4j/nlog4j should not be an ADS concern.
NLOG4J SVN repository [1] indicates that the NLOG4J's POM file has not
changed since 28th of August 2005. You also mentioned that ADS was
currently using 1.2.19 which was released around December 2005. Given that
NLOG4J's POM file has not changed between 1.2.19 and 1.2.23, there is
nothing to revert, is there?
[1]
http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>Alex
>
>P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not, is it
possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
--
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/