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

logback-classic transitive dependency #723

Closed
janossch opened this issue Jan 13, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #754
Closed

logback-classic transitive dependency #723

janossch opened this issue Jan 13, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #754

Comments

@janossch
Copy link

Hi @andye2004 and @paulcwarren

I've used spring content 1.2.2 version so far, and I've just updated to a newer version in our project, which includes the changes from this Feature/PR.
Since then spring content directly depends on logback, so it appeared in our classpath, however our project isn't using logback but other SL4J implementation. I know it’s not a big deal, I can easily exclude the dependency out, but from such a nice framework, I would expect not force me to take such unnecessary steps.

So until now our pom.xml looked like this

<dependency>
 <groupId>com.github.paulcwarren</groupId>
 <artifactId>spring-content-fs-boot-starter</artifactId>
 <version>1.2.2</version>
</dependency>

If i would like to jump to the newer version I need the following workaround:

<dependency>
 <groupId>com.github.paulcwarren</groupId>
 <artifactId>spring-content-fs-boot-starter</artifactId>
 <version>1.2.6</version>
  <exclusions>
   <exclusion>
   <groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId>
   <artifactId>logback-classic</artifactId>
   </exclusion>
   <exclusions>
</dependency>

I've just looked at the PR related to the above mentioned feature, but from that I feel the test scope would meets the purpose, but that's just a guess.

What is your opinion?
Do you think I need to live together with the dependency exclusion? Or am i on a completely wrong track? :)

@paulcwarren
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for the report @janossch . I think this was just an oversight on my part. As a rule I havent put dependencies in the part pom. I'll take a look at this for the next release.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants