Quite new to maven here so let me explain first what I am trying to do:
We have certain JAR files which will not be added to the repo. This is because they are specific to Oracle ADF and are already placed on our application server. There is only 1 version to be used for all apps at anyone time. In order to compile though, we need to have these on the class path. There are a LOT of these JARS, so if we were to upgrade to a newer version of ADF, we would have to go into every application and redefine some pretty redundant dependencies. So again, my goal is to just add these JARs to the classpath, since we will control what version is actually used elsewhere.
So basically, I want to just add every JAR in a given network directory (of which devs do not have permission to modify) to maven's classpath for when it compiles. And without putting any of these JAR files in a repository. And of course, these JARs are not to be packaged into any EAR/WAR.
edit:
Amongst other reasons why I do not want to add these to the corporate repo is that:
These JARs are not used by anything else. There are a lot of them, uncommon and exclusive to Oracle.
There will only be one version of a given JAR used at anyone time. There will never be the case where Application A depends on 1.0 and Application B depends on 1.1. Both App A and B will depend on either 1.1 or 1.2 solely.
We are planning to maintain 100+ applications. That is a lot of pom.xml files, meaning anytime we upgrade Oracle ADF, if any dependency wasn't correctly specified (via human error) we will have to fix each mistake every time we edit those 100+ pom.xml files for an upgrade.
I see three options:
Put the dependencies in a repository (could be a file repository as described in this answer) and declare them with a scope provided.
Use the dirty system scope trick (i.e. declare the dependencies with a system scope and set the path to the jars in your file system.
Little variation of #2: create a jar with a MANIFEST.MF referencing all the jars (using a relative path) and declare a dependency on this almost empty jar with a system scope.
The clean way is option #1 but others would work too in your case. Option #3 seems be the closest to what you're looking for.
Update: To clarify option #3
Let's say you have a directory with a.jar and b.jar. Create a c.jar with a Class-Path entry in its META-INF/MANIFEST.MF listing other jars, something like this:
Class-Path: ./a.jar ./b.jar
Then declare a dependency in your POM on c (and only on c) with a system scope, other jars will become "visible" without having to explicitly list them in your POM (sure, you need to declare them in the manifest but this can be very easily scripted).
Although you explicitly stated you don't want them in the repository, your reasons are not justified. Here's my suggestion:
install these jars in your repostory
add them as maven dependencies, with <scope>provided</scope>. This means that they are provided by your runtime (the application server) and will not be included in your artifacts (war/ear)
Check this similar question
It is advisable that an organization that's using maven extensively has its own repository. You can see Nexus. Then you can install these jars in your repository and all developers will use them, rather than having the jars in each local repository only.
(The "ugliest" option would be not to use maven at all, put put the jars on a relative location and add them to the classpath of the project, submitting the classpath properties file (depending on the IDE))
if you are developing ADF (10g / 11g I guess) components, I suppose you'll be using JDeveloper as IDE. JDeveloper comes with a very rich Library Management Tool that allows you to define which libaries are required for compiling or which ones should be packaged for deployment. I I suppose you will already know how to add libraries to projects and indicate in the deployment profile which ones should be picked while packaging. If you want to keep your libraries out of maven, maybe this could be the best approach. Let´s say the libraries you refer too are the "Webcenter" ones, using this approach will guarantee you you have the adequate libraries as JDeveloper will come with the right version libraries.
Nevertheless, as you are using maven I would not recommend to keep some libraries out of control and maven repositories. I´d recommend choose between maven and Oracle JDeveloper library management. In our current project we are working with JDeveloper ADF 11g (and WebCenter) and we use maven, it simply make us library management easier. At the end of the day, we will have a big amount of third party libraries (say Apache, Spring, etc.) that are useful to be managed by maven and not so many Oracle libraries really required for compiling in the IDE (as you would only need the API ones and not their implementations). Our approach has been to add the Oracle libraries to our maven repository whenever they are required and let maven to control the whole dependency management.
As others say in their answers if you don´t want the dependencies to be included in any of your artifacts use <scope>provided</scope>. Once you configure your development environment you will be grateful maven does the work and you can (almost) forget about dependency management. To build the JDeveloper IDE files we are using the maven jdev plugin, so mvn jdev:jdev would build generate our project files and set up dependencies on libraries and among them to compile properly.
Updated:
Of course, you need to refer to ADF libraries in your pom files. In our project we just refer to the ones used on each application, say ADF Tag Libraries or a specific service, not the whole ADF/WebCenter stack. For this purpose use the "provided" scope. You can still let JDeveloper to manage your libraries, but we have found that it's simpler to either have a 100% JDeveloper libraries approach or a 100% maven approach. If you go with the maven approach it will take you some time to build your local repo at first, but once that's done it's very easy to maintain, and the whole cycle (development, build, test, packaging and deployment) will be simpler, having a more consistent configuration. It's true that in a future you'll have to update to later ADF versions, but as your repository structure will already be defined it should be something fast. For future upgrades I'd recommend to keep the ADF version as a property on the top pom, that will allow you to switch faster to a new version.
Related
Semi-greenthumb here. I'm looking to download some Apache Commons and Google Guava libraries to use in Eclipse. Multiple Q&As (example, example) have said to download the library myself, and then either load it in Eclipse by path as a "User Library" that I can add manually to projects or go through an automated project management plugin like Maven. However, that leaves the question, where should I actually store the library on my system? (Mac OS)
Ideally, I want it in a directory that is common to all Mac/*NIX systems. However, this Q&A seems to suggest that doing so would be a bad idea, and this comment implies that I should keep a separate copy of the library within each project that uses it. This seems like it would be both a waste of space (for projects that use the same library version), as well as make linting Java files in a separate text editor a hassle due to libraries being stored within an Eclipse project's file structure rather than at the system level.
So where should I put 3rd party Java libraries?
I faced the same issue when I was maintaining my project dependencies in a manual way. It is difficult to have control over them, and sometimes updating a library can be a really painful experience if that update breaks a transitive dependency.
All this pain went away when I switched to Maven.
When you configure Maven, you can set the directory where these libraries will reside (common path is {user.dir}/.m2 } and every time a dependency is added to a project (via POM), then Maven will check if that library is already downloaded. If not, it will download it and store it for any future use (of the same version). It also resolves transitive dependencies for you, so you don't have to worry of breaking it when manually replacing a JAR.
This way you don't have to worry where the libraries are, your IDE will reference them automatically using the apropiate Maven plugin
I'm not saying you should use Maven, but if your problem is managing dependencies, then Maven (or any other dependency management system, eg: Gradle) may help you.
The comment you cited is pretty naïve in its approach. There are far too many build management tools to handle dependencies without having to deal with these minutiae.
If you decide on a tool such as Maven, your dependencies will be downloaded into a specified local repository (a directory on your filesystem), and all Mavenized applications can easily be configured to use those (shared) artifacts.
Most Java supported IDEs like Eclipse come with the option to initialize projects with Maven (or Gradle, as another example) and have sleek interfaces to easily edit their configuration files to specify which dependencies your projects will use.
I would strongly recommend either of those as opposed to manual JAR/artifact management, even for basic personal tinkering projects.
I have inherited an old project that using ant to build against weblogic.jar. I am moving this into a more modern maven based build environment and I don't want to check in weblogic.jar ( which is 34MB ) into my private artifact repository and I don't want to add it to my local repository either. I am not sure what it is using from this, the project is one monolithic code base over 500,000 lines of code.
We won't actually have Weblogic on our local development machines, we are deploying to remote virtual machines to test because of corporate network topology to get the services our application needs to talk to.
What alternative do I have to building against weblogic.jar.
Using system scope is usually considered a bad practice. However, I would say in the case of weblogic.jar, using system scope makes sense. The reason is that the the weblogic.jar does not contains all the classes provided by WLS installation. If you open weblogic.jar and take a look at the MANIFEST.MF file inside, it contains a long list of jar files in the Class-Path: entry. These jar references are all using relative path. It means that if you put the weblogic.jar into the maven repository, the relative path is broken and you need to a lot more WLS jar files into your maven repository.
The catch is that if your system-scoped dependency points to the weblogic.jar in your WLS installation, you need to standardize the WLS installation directory for all your developers. Otherwise your build is not portable in other developers' machine.
Since maven downloads everything it tries to resolve into your local repository the only way (afaik) would be wrapping the existing ant task using maven-ant-task.
Personally I would prefer to add the weblogic stuff into the maven repository.
If you don't want to put it into your local repo, you could refer to it using system-scoped dependency, in which case you'd just refer to it from your disk. I'm not sure why that would be better option, but since you asked for it, you might have a solid reason.
However assuming you don't want to use weblogic.jar at all: it's not really possible to say what alternatives to building against it you have without knowing what you need from it. That needs to be found out first. If you use weblogic-specific stuff, you do need the reference.
I hope I can keep this question specific enough, my team at work is currently debating the best way to manage our dependencies for a huge project (150+ dependencies ~300mb).
We have two main problems
Keeping all the developers dependencies the same so we are compiling against the same files
Ensure the project (once compiled) is comliped against the same dependencies
The two ideas that have been suggested are using a BirJar (all dependencies in one file) and just adding a version number to it and using a shared folder and pointing everyone's machines at the same place.
Or making including all the dependencies in the jar when we compile it (a jar, of jars, of jars) and just have a project that "has no dependencies"
Someone also mentioned setting up an internal version of Ivy and pointing all the code to pull dependencies from there.
What are the best practices regarding massive dependency management?
Why don't you use Maven and its dependency management ?
You can specify each dependency, its particular version and its scope (compile-time, for testing, for deployment etc.). You can provide a master pom.xml (the config file) that specifies these, and developers can override if they need (say, to evaluate new versions).
e.g. I specify a pom.xml that details the particular jars I require and their versions (or range). Dependent jars are determined/downloaded automatically. I can nominate which of these jars are used for compilation vs. deployment etc. If I use a centralised repository such as Nexus I can then build my artefact (e.g. a library) and deploy that into Nexus, and it'll become available for other developers to download in exactly the same manner as 3rd party libs etc.
Incase you dont like/want to follow the Maven project structure...
If you already use Ant, then your best bet is to use Ivy for dependency management.
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
It provides a rich set of ant tasks for dependency manipulation.
from : Ant dependency management
I am developing a web-app and use maven for dependency management (duh). Some of the needed jars are already available in the server lib folder, but do not match the "maven naming scheme", ie missing the version suffix.
I would like to use them for development and deployment, but..
1. i cant point maven to them because maven seem to need a version suffix. I cant omit it in the pom.
2. If i define the dependency outside maven then maven is obviously unable to build.
3. Renaming the files inside the server distribution sounds like a kludge.
What would Brian Boitano do? I mean, there sure is an elegant solution that im not aware of, or at least a good argument for one of the three solutions above.
Thank you
PS. i am using jboss 5.1 and maven 2.2.1 atm, but its subject to change
You can provide those jars as a dependency with a system scope if you want explicitly to identify where they live. For more info have a look here
IF those are not proprietary libs you are using, I'd recommend you use official versions of those from maven repository.
If they are proprietary you can manually install jar to your local repository using maven(you can use your version, suffixes, group names, artifactid etc) and then use them in your pom.
I've downloaded Spring 3.0.2 with dependencies and found that it contains 405 jar files. I usually keep third party libraries in a "lib" subdirectory, but there are so many Spring jars that it seems sensible to keep them separately so that they don't swamp the other libraries and to simplify version upgrades.
I suspect that I want to keep the full set of libraries in Subversion, but only deploy the subset that is actually used.
Do Spring users have a standard way to deal with this problem?
The vast majority of the "dependencies" are unnecessary, it really is a "kitchen sink" distribution. I would suggest just putting the Spring JARs themselves into lib, and only add the others as and when you need them.
In fact, you can pick and choose which Spring JARS you need - it's split up into several, so that you can pick the appropriate ones. There should be a readme file in the distribution describing which JARs you need, and what they depend on.
If you insist on using Ant, you can use its companion, Ivy, for dependency management. Personally, I have been a fairly happy Maven user for years.
If you build using Maven, you can specify that you require particular Spring libraries. Maven will download these and their declared dependencies into your local repository, and package those jars required into your final solution. You don't need to declare anything other than your top-level dependency on Spring.