February 2010 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by Andrew Rubinger

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524632#524632 Author : Andrew Rubinger Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/ALRubinger Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Agree; put some pressure here: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Global+exclusion+of+artifacts S, ALR -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524632#524632

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by jaikiran pai

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524557#524557 Author : jaikiran pai Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/jaikiran Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > jaikiran wrote: > > I don't mind having this new enforcer rule, but eventually i suspect that we are going to end up with a lengthy (trial and error, ever changing) excludes list A bit OT - If Maven allowed a way to exclude an artifact irrespective of from which artifact it get's pulled in transitively from, then instead of something like this: <dependency> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId> <artifactId>hibernate-annotations</artifactId> <version>${version.org.hibernate}</version>  <exclusions> <exclusion> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId> <artifactId>hibernate</artifactId> </exclusion> </exclusions> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId> <artifactId>hibernate-entitymanager</artifactId> <version>${version.org.hibernate.hibernate-entitymanager}</version>  <exclusions> <exclusion> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId> <artifactId>hibernate</artifactId> </exclusion> </exclusions> </dependency> we could just have had: <exclusions> <exclusion> <groupId>org.hibernate</groupId> <artifactId>hibernate</artifactId>  <include-transitive/> </exclusion> </exclusions> -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524557#524557

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by jaikiran pai

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524556#524556 Author : jaikiran pai Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/jaikiran Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > ALRubinger wrote: > > Good! That way we can be ensured we're not depending upon VFS directly, no matter what comes in. And it future-proofs us. > > I know I asked if anyone thinks I'm being too strict; I don't think I am. > > So we should set exclusions appropriately and ensure that we only have it in "provided"; available to runtimes. > > S, > ALR I don't mind having this new enforcer rule, but eventually i suspect that we are going to end up with a lengthy (trial and error, ever changing) excludes list -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524556#524556

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by Andrew Rubinger

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524555#524555 Author : Andrew Rubinger Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/ALRubinger Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > jaikiran wrote: > > > ALRubinger wrote: > > > > > > Something I want is an Enforcer Plugin configuration which will fail the build if any org.jboss:jboss-vfs is available in "compile" scope; this is a runtime dependency which should be restricted to "provided". > > > > > I think with such a rule, we might run into trouble if that org.jboss:jboss-vfs is being pulled in transitively during compile scope from some other non-EJB3 module. Ex: core (depends on) --> some artifact (compile scope dependency on) --> org.jboss:jboss-vfs Good! That way we can be ensured we're not depending upon VFS directly, no matter what comes in. And it future-proofs us. I know I asked if anyone thinks I'm being too strict; I don't think I am. So we should set exclusions appropriately and ensure that we only have it in "provided"; available to runtimes. S, ALR -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524555#524555

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by jaikiran pai

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524554#524554 Author : jaikiran pai Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/jaikiran Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > ALRubinger wrote: > > > Something I want is an Enforcer Plugin configuration which will fail the build if any org.jboss:jboss-vfs is available in "compile" scope; this is a runtime dependency which should be restricted to "provided". > > I think with such a rule, we might run into trouble if that org.jboss:jboss-vfs is being pulled in transitively during compile scope from some other non-EJB3 module. Ex: core (depends on) --> some artifact (compile scope dependency on) --> org.jboss:jboss-vfs -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524554#524554

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "Re: EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by Andrew Rubinger

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524553#524553 Author : Andrew Rubinger Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/ALRubinger Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Forgot the report. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524553#524553

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[EJB 3.0 Development] New message: "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction"

by Andrew Rubinger

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "EJBTHREE-2007: VFS Abstraction": http://community.jboss.org/message/524552#524552 Author : Andrew Rubinger Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/ALRubinger Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-2007 I've created a skeleton project to house our VFS abstraction: http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/components/vfs/trunk/ Something I want is an Enforcer Plugin configuration which will fail the build if any org.jboss:jboss-vfs is available in "compile" scope; this is a runtime dependency which should be restricted to "provided". I might take a stab at a custom rule: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-api/writing-a-custom-rule.html Then we can adjust our dependencies to always bar VFS from coming in (right now it's declared in core and through jboss-metadata; see attached report). The actual task of splitting into an SPI and getting the extisting stuff into org.jboss.ejb3.vfs:vfs-impl-vfs2 shoudn't be too difficult from the looks of it, but I would like to see the Enforcer in place. Anyone think I'm being too strict? S, ALR -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524552#524552

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: JMX's ServiceControllerContext doesn't use MDR"

by Ales Justin

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "JMX's ServiceControllerContext doesn't use MDR": http://community.jboss.org/message/524547#524547 Author : Ales Justin Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/alesj Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- This needs fixing first: * http://community.jboss.org/message/316423#316423 Otherwise we always need to add such "hack": * repository.addMetaData(context); * repository.getMetaData(context); // <-- THIS is actually the call that populates it -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524547#524547

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Miscellaneous Development] New message: "Re: Removing xalan.jar"

by jaikiran pai

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Removing xalan.jar": http://community.jboss.org/message/524545#524545 Author : jaikiran pai Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/jaikiran Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- And since this question is more related to JBoss AS development than "Miscellaneous Development", i'll move it to our AS dev forum. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524545#524545

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Miscellaneous Development] New message: "Re: Removing xalan.jar"

by Brian Stansberry

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Removing xalan.jar": http://community.jboss.org/message/524543#524543 Author : Brian Stansberry Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I suggest you ask this question on the jboss-development mailing list. Relevant people may not follow this forum. I saw this post quite by accident. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/524543#524543

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums February 2010