This thread is about altering the implementation of MNG-5567. I am unsure why you think it's unrelated to the new scope; that is being proposed as the new implementation. If the new scope can be introduced in 3.4, then I think MNG-5567 should be too; otherwise rolled back.
Cheers, Paul On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 <micha...@apache.org> > >> wrote: >> >> Am 2016-08-15 um 17:59 schrieb Paul Benedict: >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> >>>> 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: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
