On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Adrian A. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 :). > > With maven it would be simple to test: just change the pom.xml version element of that lib and let it do the work. How do you do in ant?
