Michael, Robert, and Christian, thank you all for your input. I found the discussion very helpful and fruitful.
The issue for introducing a new scope for non-functional resources is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6080 I would like to take part in the development of this feature, if possible. Please let me know anyway which I can help. Cheers, Paul On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> >> >
