Mixing
Specifying version in Maven optional dependency
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I have a library project where i'm considering adding some dependencies as optional, since they will be required only for projects compiling and running on JDK9+.
However, the documentation about optional dependencies does not clarify whether it is possible to optionally depend on specific version, i.e., if i can put in my library pom file something like
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>2.0</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
And somehow make sure that projects that depend on my library and also want to include dependency-a will depend on version 2.0.
As far as I understand, setting dependency-a as optional mean that projects that depend on my library will not transitively depend on it, but they may explicitly add it in their own dependencies if they need some additional (optional) features in my library.
Is there a way to make sure that if they want to add dependency-a they depend on a specific version?
What would happen if a project depending on my library had
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And version 1.0 was not compatible with version 2.0?
And if it isn't possible to enforce the version on optional dependencies, what's the point in setting the version for an optional dependency?
I have also been looking at the maven enforcer plugin as it seems to be able to handle cases like this, but I was wondering if there is a better solution.
maven dependency-management
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
add a comment |
I have a library project where i'm considering adding some dependencies as optional, since they will be required only for projects compiling and running on JDK9+.
However, the documentation about optional dependencies does not clarify whether it is possible to optionally depend on specific version, i.e., if i can put in my library pom file something like
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>2.0</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
And somehow make sure that projects that depend on my library and also want to include dependency-a will depend on version 2.0.
As far as I understand, setting dependency-a as optional mean that projects that depend on my library will not transitively depend on it, but they may explicitly add it in their own dependencies if they need some additional (optional) features in my library.
Is there a way to make sure that if they want to add dependency-a they depend on a specific version?
What would happen if a project depending on my library had
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And version 1.0 was not compatible with version 2.0?
And if it isn't possible to enforce the version on optional dependencies, what's the point in setting the version for an optional dependency?
I have also been looking at the maven enforcer plugin as it seems to be able to handle cases like this, but I was wondering if there is a better solution.
maven dependency-management
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54
add a comment |
I have a library project where i'm considering adding some dependencies as optional, since they will be required only for projects compiling and running on JDK9+.
However, the documentation about optional dependencies does not clarify whether it is possible to optionally depend on specific version, i.e., if i can put in my library pom file something like
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>2.0</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
And somehow make sure that projects that depend on my library and also want to include dependency-a will depend on version 2.0.
As far as I understand, setting dependency-a as optional mean that projects that depend on my library will not transitively depend on it, but they may explicitly add it in their own dependencies if they need some additional (optional) features in my library.
Is there a way to make sure that if they want to add dependency-a they depend on a specific version?
What would happen if a project depending on my library had
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And version 1.0 was not compatible with version 2.0?
And if it isn't possible to enforce the version on optional dependencies, what's the point in setting the version for an optional dependency?
I have also been looking at the maven enforcer plugin as it seems to be able to handle cases like this, but I was wondering if there is a better solution.
maven dependency-management
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
I have a library project where i'm considering adding some dependencies as optional, since they will be required only for projects compiling and running on JDK9+.
However, the documentation about optional dependencies does not clarify whether it is possible to optionally depend on specific version, i.e., if i can put in my library pom file something like
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>2.0</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
And somehow make sure that projects that depend on my library and also want to include dependency-a will depend on version 2.0.
As far as I understand, setting dependency-a as optional mean that projects that depend on my library will not transitively depend on it, but they may explicitly add it in their own dependencies if they need some additional (optional) features in my library.
Is there a way to make sure that if they want to add dependency-a they depend on a specific version?
What would happen if a project depending on my library had
<dependency>
<groupId>com.foo</groupId>
<artifactId>dependency-a</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
And version 1.0 was not compatible with version 2.0?
And if it isn't possible to enforce the version on optional dependencies, what's the point in setting the version for an optional dependency?
I have also been looking at the maven enforcer plugin as it seems to be able to handle cases like this, but I was wondering if there is a better solution.
maven dependency-management
maven dependency-management
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
asked Jan 3 at 14:42
RaibazRaibaz
4,22363147
4,22363147
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54
add a comment |
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
My understanding of optional is the following:
If you declare a dependency as optional, it stays on your compile classpath (so you need a version), but is not transitively visible for users of your library. So users of your library would need to add the dependency themselves (with a sensible version) to their POM.
I also do not see how you want to use the enforcer plugins because users of your library will not "see" the plugins you have in your POM.
For ease of use, I would recommend to have two different jars for the different Java versions, either separated by classifier or by version (like 1.2.3-JDK8, 1.2.3-JDK9).
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54024506%2fspecifying-version-in-maven-optional-dependency%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
My understanding of optional is the following:
If you declare a dependency as optional, it stays on your compile classpath (so you need a version), but is not transitively visible for users of your library. So users of your library would need to add the dependency themselves (with a sensible version) to their POM.
I also do not see how you want to use the enforcer plugins because users of your library will not "see" the plugins you have in your POM.
For ease of use, I would recommend to have two different jars for the different Java versions, either separated by classifier or by version (like 1.2.3-JDK8, 1.2.3-JDK9).
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
add a comment |
My understanding of optional is the following:
If you declare a dependency as optional, it stays on your compile classpath (so you need a version), but is not transitively visible for users of your library. So users of your library would need to add the dependency themselves (with a sensible version) to their POM.
I also do not see how you want to use the enforcer plugins because users of your library will not "see" the plugins you have in your POM.
For ease of use, I would recommend to have two different jars for the different Java versions, either separated by classifier or by version (like 1.2.3-JDK8, 1.2.3-JDK9).
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
add a comment |
My understanding of optional is the following:
If you declare a dependency as optional, it stays on your compile classpath (so you need a version), but is not transitively visible for users of your library. So users of your library would need to add the dependency themselves (with a sensible version) to their POM.
I also do not see how you want to use the enforcer plugins because users of your library will not "see" the plugins you have in your POM.
For ease of use, I would recommend to have two different jars for the different Java versions, either separated by classifier or by version (like 1.2.3-JDK8, 1.2.3-JDK9).
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
My understanding of optional is the following:
If you declare a dependency as optional, it stays on your compile classpath (so you need a version), but is not transitively visible for users of your library. So users of your library would need to add the dependency themselves (with a sensible version) to their POM.
I also do not see how you want to use the enforcer plugins because users of your library will not "see" the plugins you have in your POM.
For ease of use, I would recommend to have two different jars for the different Java versions, either separated by classifier or by version (like 1.2.3-JDK8, 1.2.3-JDK9).
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
answered Jan 3 at 19:46
JF MeierJF Meier
10.1k52969
10.1k52969
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54024506%2fspecifying-version-in-maven-optional-dependency%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is at least two independent questions. Regarding the JDK bit, I think the best way is to add the dependency inside a profile, and activate the profile only for jdk 9+. See stackoverflow.com/a/167284/4897413 and maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/…
– gjoranv
Jan 3 at 17:54