-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Issue #8540, add classifier for jetty-10.0.x #8541
Conversation
@@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ | |||
<dependency> | |||
<groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId> | |||
<artifactId>infinispan-remote</artifactId> | |||
<classifier>config</classifier> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Depending on the config
classifier (only meaningful to jetty-home
) in a bom is just super odd, and feels wrong.
Why not just have <type>pom</type>
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I agree, <type>pom</type>
is better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@olamy can you think of any maven technical reason for not just using <type>pom</type>
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the bom is mostly made (e.g only useful) for embedded users.
So TBH I don't even understand why we have <artifactId>infinispan-remote</artifactId>
in the bom. This module contains no code but only configuration files.
So except the config
jar which contains the jetty configuration module files it's a totally useless artifact :)
Either we remove it from the bom or we "expose" the only useless artifact which is the config
but frankly I even don't understand why :)
wdy? Remove the entry from the bom?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Remove the entry from the bom?
I'd vote +1 for this approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FTR #8554
fix:#8540