On 2011-10-25, sebb wrote: > On 25 October 2011 09:50, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: >>>> So I would only release the shaded jar.
>>> IIRC sebb objected to shading. >> Why was that, sebb? > I don't recall saying that I objected; I did wonder what advantage it > would give. Probably I read more into that question back then than you intended, sorry. >> I cannot think of a good reason why this should be a problem. > Maybe not in this case, but if the dependency is then updated AIUI > using shading would prevent the user from updating the dependency > independently. This is my understanding as well. I've also been told packagers - those people that create RPMs or debs or ... - don't like shaded dependencies for the same reason. >>> We have the choice of releasing only a >>> shaded jar, only a plain jar with a POM that states a hard-dependency >>> or releasing two artifacts. >> You know my preference :) > Now that XZ is in Maven, it seems to me the simplest solution is to > have a dependency on it. That would be easiest but at the same time force an additional dependency for people who don't use XZ at all. One they could explicitly exclude in their POM or ivy.xml or whatever, of course. Personally I'm on the fence. >From the POV of the Compress Antlib for example I now need to tell people to fetch Common Compress and in the future Id have to tell them to fetch XZ as well. Then again this is a problem I should solve over there. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
