I hear different opinions on how to move forward. Robert believes it's possible with MPLUGIN-305 (is that really the right ticket #?), but you have doubts for the 3.x series. Which shall it be for 3.4? If a new scope cannot be introduced, then I would like MNG-5567 backed out until 4.0.
Cheers, Paul On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 2016-08-15 um 17:59 schrieb Paul Benedict: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Michael Osipov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > Control of the classpath is the dependency list itself, isn't it? >>> There is opt-in/-out att all for any kind of dependency. >>> >>> Third, it's possible a "zip" non-classpath resource could conflict with a >>> >>>> same named resource in the classpath. I haven't had to be concerned with >>>> this (yet), but I will be on the lookout if MNG-5567 doesn't change. >>>> >>>> >>> I conflict in resources names can also happen with JARs and you have no >>> control of it at all as of today. >>> >>> How would you try to solve the problem? >>> >>> >> I propose introducing a new scope. All the scopes dictate when a >> dependency >> makes it onto the classpath. In the case of a pure non-classpath resource >> container, it never needs be on the classpath, but it does need to remain >> available in the reactor. No current scope fits this need. If I may >> propose >> the new scope name, I would call it "asset". >> > > While this sounds reasonable, I highly doubt that this will happen before > Maven 4.0. > > You may want to raise an issue for this. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
