[...] > > (or something like that) - jelly should always use artifacts, not > dependencies, to construct paths. It doesnt stop you naming jars > whatever you like, if they are in the local repo. I had a look over the > broken plugins a while back and I think there was only one case where it > wasnt clear that the use of dependency was a bug. >
Just to make myself more clear. I wanted to say that in the most of the cases plugins don't need to know nothing about existence of local repository. They just can operate on set of file with absolute path. I think that such assumption (or rather lack of any assumptions) can result in simpler code. So I simply don't agree with statement: "jelly should always use artifacts, not dependencies, to construct paths". I would rather prefer that jelly uses path constructed in maven core (artifact factory) and ignore existence of such <<entity>> like "local repository". Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
