If we went this route, it would be a new packaging type you opt into. It would purely be an additive change so wouldn’t affect any existing behaviour but only taking advantage of what we have for something like the WAR file. We may find this is insufficient but I don’t know without trying.
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Uwe Barthel <[email protected]> wrote: > > On October 27, 2015 4:08:11 PM Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So I think we have then opportunity to model this correctly and we have >> something similar already in a WAR. We have a handler that clips all >> transitive dependencies. There would be a bit more work but if we make a >> separate packaging, build out the classpath correctly during the build we >> can probably eliminate the need for the dependency reduced POMs as we don't >> need it for WARs. Again, obviously not the same but I think this is the >> route to go. >> >> jvz > > But, isn't the underplaying change is a major change? > It compromise/breaks the actual API. > > May it could be possible in Maven 3.4 or 4, but not in 3.3.x. > > Just my 2 cents. > > -- barthel > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Takari and Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/takari_io --------------------------------------------------------- We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. -- Unknown --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
