My mistake: it's MPLUGIN-302, Dependency Annotation
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:57:25 +0200, Paul Benedict <[email protected]>
wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
