Not planned to my knowledge. Maven used to do it, and it didn't work
because you sometimes need a compile scope dependency transitively
(the classic example being extending an abstract class from a
different package).
The better solution is to add the ability to export your dependencies
in a given scope so that you can hide those considered an
implementation detail.
- Brett
On 25/05/2007, at 9:33 AM, Christian Gruber wrote:
Nothing like original thought, huh? :)
Never mind then - good to know. Count this e-mail as a moral +1 on
that feature should it ever come to vote.
Christian.
On May 24, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I think we have this planned for 2.1. I know it's been discussed
before.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Gruber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey.
I was thinking about the best-practice (I hate that word) of
including all direct dependencies in a pom even if you would get the
code transitively (in case transitive relationships are changed
behind the scenes). This makes sense, but it makes me wonder if the
compile phase shouldn't only import dependencies non-transitively.
christian gruber + [EMAIL PROTECTED] + mob 410.900.0796 + mob2
416.998.6023
process coach and architect + ISRÁFÍL CONSULTING SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
