[wildfly-dev] Wildfly 9 BOM changes

[John Mazzitelli]

I was under the impression the best-practice "Maven-way" is to never specify scope in BOMs (dependencyManagement) - let the importers of the BOM determine the scope of the dependencies (to avoid the problems Thomas is reporting).

IMO, we should stick with the standard Maven best-practice and not provide a scope. Anyone, therefore, importing BOMs should (usually) know they have to worry about providing their scope since that's the normal operating procedure in Maven BOM usage.

This SO entry talks about this and the one response indicates problems with transitive deps if you put scope in dependencyManagement (which sounds like the same reason why WildFly has it - to specify "the most common" scope): http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15221299/dependencymanagement-and-scope

I'm sure there are other reasons why not to do this. IMO, we should avoid the hassles this is going to introduce - keep scope out of the BOM.

----- Original Message -----
> Hey Thomas,
> 
> yes, boms ware modifed to have scope provided, as given the feedback on
> forums lots of folks had problems with
> bundling the API jars with their application, which resulted in lots of
> deployment problems.
> 
> The testing on other hand results in problems you have, which are quite
> easily fixed if you change the scope of dependency
> when you are defining deps for your test modules.
> 
> Question is what is more common problem, one or another. It is hard to choose
> what to cater to in this case.
> 
> I think that best thing do here is to update our quickstarts that reflect how
> to work with newer boms.
> 
> 
> Maybe someone else has better idea?
> 
> --
> tomaz
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Thomas Segismont < tsegismo at redhat.com >
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> While working on upgrading Hawkular to Wildfly 9 CR2, we have noticed
> that the Wildfly BOM now declares provided scope for some dependencies.
> 
> I guess the goal is to help users which forget to set the provided scope
> in their POM to end up with all the libraries in their WAR.
> 
> On the other hand, if you use some libraries in your tests, then
> dependency resolution can be broken. For example, if you add
> org.jboss.resteasy::resteasy-client in test scope, your tests fail due
> to a missing class from commons-io, because commons-io should be
> resolved as a transitive dependency of
> org.jboss.resteasy::resteasy-jaxrs, but it's now in scope provided,
> instead of test.
> 
> Have you considered this use case? Are there other motivations than
> helping Maven beginners?
> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev