On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hola, > > On 1/23/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's a good step, but it's not sufficient for this case and does > > > not provide the same functionality as add scope="provided." > > > > > > Why? The part of C-L that depends on the servlet API is indeed optional, > > That's my bad wording. Declaring the dependency as optional would > actually be sufficient for my use-case. However, as the Maven doc > notes > (http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and-excludes-dependencies.html), > optional dependencies are a stop-gap measure. I think the > scope="provided" is a bit cleaner and has clearer semantics to users.
I would agree with Craig's assessment of this - optional seems the correct scope to me. Well, actually, the dependency on servlet-api should probably be marked both optional *and* provided, in that it is not needed in order to use many JCL features, but if you do want to use the JCL "cleanup on webapp unload" then the supporting jar is expected to be provided by the surrounding environment. However as it's not possible to use both, optional seems to more correctly describe the usage to me. The linked page describes optional dependencies as a "stop-gap" compared to splitting the project into submodules, not compared to using "provided" scope. However splitting the servlet-related functionality of JCL into a separate module/jar would just be silly - it's only one class, and JCL is full of other optional dependencies anyway. > > Either way, it looks like this is being addressed or will be shortly: > thanks for the quick responses. Now I just have to wait for the next > JCL release ;) Actually, if it's as simple as just packaging and > updating the web site, I guess I could do it myself. The only outstanding issue I know of is deciding how to do the actual release build, because we want to support java 1.2, but JCL also contains java.util.logging stuff that only builds with java1.4. In the past, spearate compilers have been used to build various bits then the results stitched together. I would prefer to build the lot with java 1.6 using -target 1.2 and then run the unit tests against this jar using java1.2 to verify the results are usable but (a) need to figure out how to do that, and (b) need to get agreement that it is an acceptable approach. Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
