-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 390
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
Updating quarkus examples pom.xml files #1988
Conversation
Removing unnecessary properties and substituting what should be there. This cleans up the pom files and removes potentially confusing lines in the pom.xml files for examples. Signed-off-by: Jason Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
I will review this tomorrow and check the relationship for the exiting PR #1984. That, probably will be closed, need to check. |
<version>${quarkus.platform.version}</version> | ||
<groupId>io.quarkus</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>quarkus-bom</artifactId> | ||
<version>3.8.4</version> |
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.
isn't it better to keep versions defined as part of properties instead of moving them to the dependency block?
I agree that some properties you removed make sense to be removed to make it simple, but maybe keep the versions in the properties block?
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.
In my opinion, version (Kogito one, which is used twice in the same file and even quarkus one, which is used once, that way the two will be together) should be kept in properties block. It will be easier to change.
hard-coding of version is always not good as that requires manual changes on multiple places later and regularly. |
I fully understand the argument, and I thought about it. I typically do just that as well. However, when I was doing this one, I looked hard at:
|
Why was the PR closed? |
A home accident, reopened. Apologies |
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.
As stated in the mailing list by @gitgabrio, removing parent and version properties, even for examples, is not the best approach. The Java community has been using this approach for years, and as exemplified in the list, Spring Framework (the most popular Java framework out there) also uses it.
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.
Thanks @LightGuard , but as I stated elsewhere, IMO this refactoring goes exactly other way respect maintainability
I'll close this one and create a new PR. |
Updating the pom files to remove properties which make it confusing for end users. This removes most properties in the pom. The properties removed are only there the change the gav for some dependencies.