Furnace addon-manager should include optional non-addon dependencies as if they were not optional

jsightler
5:10 lincolnthree: Could "optional" dependencies help here as well?
jsightler
5:10 http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html
5:10 sbryzak left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
lincolnthree
5:11 jsightler: possible actually.....
5:11 jsightler: actualllyyyyyyyy
5:11 jsightler: if the runtime scoped non-addon dependency were marked as optional, we could just decide to include that
5:11 jsightler: as a one-off case
jsightler
5:12 lincolnthree: fwiw, this definition of "optional" is not what I would have thought it to be. but it sounds like it could be useful for this scenario. :)
lincolnthree
5:12 yeah, we already slightly hijacked optional
5:13 jsightler: given that it would be impossible for addons to consume optional dependencies provided by addons that included them, this would technically work - if not be slightly confusing
gastaldi
5:13 I think using the BOM is the best way to go
lincolnthree
5:13 gastaldi: im not sure about that
gastaldi
5:13 why not?
lincolnthree
5:14 gastaldi: that requires that people actually use the bom, which is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem for 3rd party addons
gastaldi
5:14 it worked here
lincolnthree
5:14 gastaldi: it works for us, not for everyone else
gastaldi
5:14 3rd party addons could have a BOM too...
lincolnthree
5:14 gastaldi: we can't expect everyone to require that people use boms or dependencyManagement to control this.
5:15 gastaldi: i think a runtime/optional non-addon dependency would be fine to include in the addon deployment
5:15 gastaldi: we already changed the way poms are handled for forge-addon classified elements
5:15 gastaldi: now we're changing how those addons include deps as well, but only in forge-addon classified deps
5:15 gastaldi: i think this works
5:16 jsightler: yes, this does what we want
5:17 gastaldi: it would look like this: http://paste2.org/0UVzK6jL
5:17 gastaldi: im not a fan of the syntax.....but.... given the options
5:17 gastaldi: using this as a hack/toggle seems tolerable to me
jsightler
5:17 lincolnthree: Nice. :)
5:18 lincolnthree: Mostly I just think maven chose an awful word for this.
lincolnthree
5:18 jsightler: yeah they did...
jsightler
5:18 lincolnthree: Optional=="ignore me transitively in every case"
lincolnthree
5:18 jsightler: right
5:19 gastaldi: at which point, it wouldn't matter what scope the optional dependency is...
5:19 gastaldi: think about it
5:19 gastaldi: when would you ever want an "optional" library in an addon
5:19 gastaldi: never
5:19 gastaldi: there's no situation where it makes sense
gastaldi
5:19 right...
lincolnthree
5:19 gastaldi: because the classpath is isolated from things that depend on it
5:20 gastaldi: so nothing could *ever* provide the optional dependency except itself
5:20 gastaldi: it would be like writing classes that can never be classloaded ever
5:20 gastaldi: lol
5:20 gastaldi: like a dog chasing its tail