This is why I believe that POM 5.0 needs the ability to both declare that a specific module *provides* other GAVs as well as at the dependency level to declare that a specific dependency of the module *provides* the equivalent of another GAV... exclusions is a non-scalable attempt to solve that problem
On 23 August 2013 08:16, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 23, 2013 12:58 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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). > > That and allow people to choose between the AOP enabled and no-AOP flavours > of guice if they want. I don't want to use an optional dependency because > it's not optional, and profiles are not a good fit. Just wondered if there > was a recommended way to let downstream users of Sisu bolt-on a different > backend edition of guice when assembling their app with Maven. > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
