I believe Stuart just want to ease life of users consuming maven artifatcs but prefer google guice rather than a fork ( preventing them having to write too many exclusions xml elements and avoid having twice guice as a dependency). I think it's a good idea and doesn't prevent us using the version we prefer.
What is the problem for you exactly with such change? -- Olivier On Aug 23, 2013 2:26 PM, "Jason van Zyl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As one of the main downstream users of Sisu would you prefer it to > declare > > a provided scope dependency to (sisu-)guice rather than the current > compile > > scope dependency? > > > > Not really. > > > Making it provided should make it easier to swap in alternative versions > > while still documenting the dependency - and avoid lots of tedious > > exclusions. The only downside I can see is that downstream users like the > > Maven runtime would then need to explicitly remember to add the > > (sisu-)guice dependency in their final application artifact/assembly (and > > potentially in some tests) as it would no longer be transitively > included. > > (though that might be a good thing documentation-wise) > > > > WDYT? > > I think you understand what the requirements are, and we need the > additional changes for it all to work well. I don't think it's very > practical to accommodate variants when we can't really use stock Guice. > When all the patches are in, which you do your best to integrate, then we > can switch. As the one doing the core releases right now I don't see any > benefit of swapping in alternate versions. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Script timed out > > > > > > >
