Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Yeah, we should probably update the dep version. But it's not urgent, because
you can override the version that Maven uses.
That said, we must still adhere to compatibility with Apache HTTP Client 4.0.1
just because that's the version Android has included in their SDK.
While we're thinking about ApacheHttpTransport, we might also think about
whether to move it to a separate artifact google-http-client-apache like we've
done for managing third-party library dependencies in other cases (e.g.
google-http-client-jackson). I can't think of any obvious problem that it
would solve per se, but it least it would limit the issue of the Apache HTTP
Client dependency to only developers that actually want to use
ApacheHttpTransport.
Original comment by yan...@google.com
on 13 Aug 2013 at 9:36
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.http-client</groupId>
<artifactId>google-http-client</artifactId>
<version>1.16.0-rc</version>
<scope>test</scope>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupId>org.apache.httpcomponents</groupId>
<artifactId>httpclient</artifactId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
worked for me :)
Original comment by paul@hammant.org
on 13 Aug 2013 at 10:05
By the way, In your Maven POM, if ApacheHttpTransport is truly optional, you
could add <optional>true</optional> as a way of not forcing downstream users to
consume it transitively..
Original comment by paul@hammant.org
on 13 Aug 2013 at 10:17
Original comment by ngmic...@google.com
on 19 Aug 2013 at 8:25
There is a discussion here of optional dependencies:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-exclude
s-dependencies.html
I don't like optional because then the dependency won't get automatically
included when you do want to use the optional feature. I think in that case we
would be better off making a new separate artifact for that functionality
(google-http-client-apache).
Original comment by yan...@google.com
on 19 Aug 2013 at 9:17
Original comment by yan...@google.com
on 27 Sep 2013 at 11:57
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
paul@hammant.org
on 13 Aug 2013 at 5:05