Also regarding the javassist dependency, this shouldn't be a
problem
cause the scope of the dependency is "provided":
http://github.com/jkuhnert/ognl/issues/closed#issue/2
I assume that is maven-speak :) Does provided mean optional?
I think it's something like this - if the users "provides" it at
runtime, than it will be used, otherwise it's not required.
No, it is a dependence!
It means ognl won't work if you (you environment) don't have it[1]. (for
example: javax.annotation is provided, if you don't have it nothing works!)
[1]http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-project-dependencies.html#pom-relationships-sect-dependency-scope
Isn't this because such code is also using javax.annotation directly?
(In the case of OGNL, Click code is not using javassist directly).
If it would be a runtime dependence, than would be quite strange
considering that I asked the actual developer of OGNL to remove the
dependency if it's possible, and his answer was:
"But the scope is "provided", so it isn't a problem" :).
Adrian.
P.S. I'm so thankful that Click is using ANT :).
