Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
I've got a similar problem but with transitive release versions (of spring)
being loaded. The POM resolves to use use one version but the RJR plugin adds a
different version to the classpath.
Original comment by simon.jo...@blackpepper.co.uk
on 11 Dec 2013 at 1:56
I have the same issue.
If I go to Run > Run Configurations and look at the "Webapp Classpath" section,
I can see that the correct version is detected and checked. However when I run
the app, the wrong version is added to the classpath.
Original comment by Gui...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2014 at 1:41
Does anyone have a workaround? I've tried setting the dependency directly in
the war project, using dependencyManagement but nothing worked.
Original comment by Gui...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2014 at 1:49
Same problem here, but in my case run-jetty-run plugin is adding test
transitive dependencies to classpath, and this is causing a huge problem with
diferent versions of the same jdbc driver being loaded.
The jars jetty is loading doesn't appear on the "depedency management" on the
pom. I don't know why jetty is including them.
Any clues on how to fix this?
Original comment by bruno...@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:09
Hmm, so many people with same problem, I worked around by creating a target
folder with all dependencies and excluding everything else. There is also a
plugin to copy all dependencies to a custom dir that alone should be in
classpath.
Original comment by krishna81m
on 21 Oct 2014 at 4:09
I worked around by dropping RunJettyRun completely.
My life is so much better now! I create a simple Main class:
public class JettyMain
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
Server server = new Server(8080);
WebAppContext context = new WebAppContext();
context.setContextPath("/your_project");
context.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp");
server.setHandler(context);
server.start();
server.join();
}
}
Using this, I can easily start an embedded Jetty using whatever version I want.
I can also easily debug.
Plus the startup time is much faster!
Here's hoping this helps others.
Original comment by Gui...@gmail.com
on 21 Oct 2014 at 12:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
r.gruend...@gmail.com
on 7 Jun 2013 at 4:33