Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Lucas Bergman wrote:
> > Running this test with Maven 2.1.0 fails:
> >
> > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/commons/logging/LogFactory
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > The POM for htmlunit 2.5 declares commons-logging 1.1.1 as a
> > (compile-scope) dependency, so this seems wrong. There seems to
> > be some interaction between that POM and the dependent POMs.
> > Indeed:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > 2. Adding an exclusion of commons-logging to the
> > hibernate-ehcache dependency causes the test to succeed. I
> > tried this, because the hibernate-ehcache POM depends on
> > commons-logging version 99.0-does-not-exist, a rather famous
> > JBoss kludge[1].
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Footnotes:
> > [1]
http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/10/announcement-version-99-does-not-exist.html>
> That is your problem. What this does is mess the dependency-tree. It
> removes commons-logging from the dependency tree because that
> version "99.0-..." is larger than the latest current release of
> commons-logging. The "99.0-..." version should *never ever* reach
> end users. It can *only* be used by internal project.
Thanks for the input. Are you saying that the dependency of the
hibernate-ehcache POM on commons-logging 99.0-does-not-exist is a bug?
I'm sympathetic to that view, but I just want to be sure. To be sure,
it seems foolish for the Hibernate developers to put something like
this in a library's POM, since it would seem to impose their kludge
on the programmer using the library.
Of course, we fixed our particular problem by adding an <exclusion>
for commons-logging from our hibernate-ehcache dependency.
-- Lucas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
users-help@...
