Am 08/31/16 um 07:52 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> I've been thinking about what to call the "consumer Pom"...
>
> I think this is actually not a project object model, but the project
> dependency trees
>
> It should list each side artifact and their dependency trees...
>
> So for example:
>
> * the java doc artifacts should depend on the corresponding dependency java
> doc artifacts (in an ideal world) because we expect {@link} references
>
> * the source artifacts do not depend on anything else (normally) but for an
> über jar (which yes is a bad pattern) you would actually be correct to
> depend on the bundled artifacts source jars... So the concept still makes
> sense
>
> * the test jar artifact would have the full test dependency tree exposed as
> this would allow for test reuse
+1
Sounds like dependency trees by scope. The compile scope tree, the
runtime scope tree, the test scope tree, the documentation scope tree,
the source code scope tree, the invented by a 3rd party scope tree, etc.
>
> Now I guess the question is if .pdt or .adt (artifact dependency trees) are
> too entrenched in some other domain that we'd want to avoid using one
> of those extensions
>
> Next steps:
>
> * start fleshing out a schema for the .pdt files
> * start fleshing out a spec for the repository layout (should be "parsable"
> by modelVersion 4.0.0 aware clients, but need to decide how to expose new
> features)
+1
Regards,
--
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
