On 24/06/2013, at 0:04, Adam Murdoch <adam.murd...@gradleware.com> wrote:
> > On 24/06/2013, at 8:28 AM, Luke Daley <luke.da...@gradle.biz> wrote: > >> >> >> On 23/06/2013, at 23:12, Adam Murdoch <adam.murd...@gradleware.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 22/06/2013, at 12:37 AM, Luke Daley <luke.da...@gradleware.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Forum issue: >>>> http://forums.gradle.org/gradle/topics/tooling_api_declares_only_runtime_dependency_on_slf4j >>>> >>>> Given Maven semantics, it does not seem correct to me that we publish with >>>> a runtime dependency on slf4j-api when it is actually a compile time >>>> dependency of ours. >>> >>> It's not a compile time dependency. None of the slf4j-api classes are >>> visible from our API. >> >> So you're saying that this means it's not a compile time dependency of the >> tooling api code? > > > It's required to compile the tooling API. It's not required to compile code > that uses the tooling API. This is my point. We are distorting the semantics of Maven scopes. It's legitimate for tooling to expect the Maven semantics. I'm not sure how serious the implication is in this particular case nor am I saying we necessarily need to change it. We do need to be watchful for such divergence from the established semantics going forward as we try to squeeze what we can out of the POM. I'm not sure what to do about the particular raised issue. > > > -- > Adam Murdoch > Gradle Co-founder > http://www.gradle.org > VP of Engineering, Gradleware Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting > http://www.gradleware.com > > >
