Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 3, 2022
Merged

Issue #8540, add classifier for jetty-10.0.x #8541

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 3, 2022

Conversation

MoonLord-LM
Copy link
Contributor

fix:#8540

@MoonLord-LM MoonLord-LM changed the title Issue #8540, add classifier Issue #8540, add classifier for jetty-10.0.x Sep 2, 2022
@MoonLord-LM
Copy link
Contributor Author

@olamy

@olamy olamy merged commit df2826f into jetty:jetty-10.0.x Sep 3, 2022
@@ -210,6 +210,7 @@
<dependency>
<groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
<artifactId>infinispan-remote</artifactId>
<classifier>config</classifier>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

@joakime joakime Sep 6, 2022

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Member

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?

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FTR #8554

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants