Am 2016-08-15 um 19:57 schrieb Paul Benedict:
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.
MNG-5567 and a new scope are not related to each other. Just file an
issue to track this request. Maybe Christian is right and we could
introduce this in 3.4.
Michael
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]
