|Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Dependency Analysis with jQA - Cyclic Dependency in all Platform Profiles!|
I added some information to the issue: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-api/issues/125
Correct me, if I am wrong, but a goal of a Maven dependency graph, as for the Jakarta EE APIs, is to have a acyclic, directed graph, that contains only one (in most cases the last) version for each dependency.That was not the case in the past, like in 9.1 and may have caused some trouble - like the fact, that this cycle between CDI and Transactions was not in focus for a longer time...
Results of that cycle are:
- more than one CDI version included in the dependency graph- a lot of duplicated transitive dependencies- Core Profile has a transitive (required!) dependency to Transactions- the cycle can only be fixes in it's current form with a simultaneous release of CDI and Transactions (or alternatively with an externalised dependency, as mentioned by you)
I think we should fix this as soon as possible, as the erosion because of the multiple involved versions takes place one higher level specs (like i.e. Faces) too.When this is because of a documentation issue (javadoc) only, than it should be strait forward to be solved - by a workaround or an external dependency as final solution.
Because of the transitive breaking changes of the involved CDI and Java SE major versions, Transactions must do a major release reflecting this for it's users (platform vendors and application developers) on my opinion.But this should be strait forward too.
Am 16.05.22 um 16:05 schrieb Scott Stark:
I'm not following why Transactions needs any updates?
Transactions did a service release for EE10 that added the module-info.class for JPMS support. CDI should be referencing that, but it is not a major issue. The bigger problem is that inability to define javadoc level dependencies. There is no code level dependency between CDI and Transactions. The jakarta.enterprise.event.TransactionPhase enum that describes how the enum values relate to jakarta.transaction.Synchronization should have been in a CDI integration library from the Transactions project, but this decision was made 10+ years ago.
There should be a javadoc scope for dependencies that allows such javadoc only uses to be differentiated. We will discuss removing the actual links in the javadoc to avoid the dependency, but this is a bit of a false circular dependency in my view.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:58 AM Jan Westerkamp <jan.westerkamp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I updated the jQA repo and let fixed the issue with an outdated index at
Sonatype for the staging repo (again) - now we have new results for the
upcoming Jakarta EE 10.0.0 release!
I uploaded the report results in a zip file to
The good news: We are making progress solving issues with dependencies!
The bad news: We have a cyclic dependency in all the Platform Profiles
(Core, Web and "Full"/Platform):
CDI has a required dependency to Jakarta Transactions, which in turn has
has required dependency to an older CDI version!
I think, besides Jakarta Transactions referencing an old version of CDI,
the last must not have a dependency to Transactions at all (or at least
not a required one using: <optional>true</optional> <!-- value will be
true or false only -->).
Regarding the comment in CDI, this reference is only used in Javadoc
<!-- Only for javadoc references -->
There are notes in the POM at property level like that too:
<!-- These are only used in javadoc links -->
But Transactions will need a updated version to be released and part of
the referencing spec configurations too!
It would be even better to get rid of that cyclic dependency at all, if
possible to prevent future issues like that.
You can see this issue at best in the simpler Core Profile graph
and the version list
in the zip file mentioned above. The Core Profile should not depend on
Transactions (and my be others required by CDI directly), but the
dependency problem with resulting versioning issues can be seen in all
Profiles, sometimes even worse regarding the use of API versions.
How do we proceed with that issue? Creating on in the relevant spec
projects (CDI, Transactions and Platform) and discuss this first here in
the mailing list or in the Jakarta Platform call (that might cause delay)?
PS: This might not be the only finding in the jQA analysis, but my first
severe one - it might be helpful to spend some additional time into it.
Back to the top