Yes I now see you are overriding the scope in child projects that use those dependencies. Nice work.
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:41 -0400, "James Carman" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pointbreak > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can see why you want to remove the provided scope from slf4j-api. > > But slf4j-log4j12, and log4j should have the provided scope (it is up to > > the containing project to choose a different logger). Wicketstuff > > projects should not force a logger implementation on projects that use > > it. > > I'm not forcing a logger implementation on anyone. The projects that > *do* use slf4j-log4j are either an "examples" project and it's given > "compile" scope or a library project and it's given "test" scope > (because they use logging messages during their test cases. Those > dependencies won't propagate to other projects (nobody should be using > an examples project as a dependency in their project anyway). > > > The same goes for the jetty jars: you are introducing classloading > > issues by e.g. adding servlet-api's. Those are provided by the > > servlet-engine that people deploy their projects > > The same thing goes here with the jetty stuff. I believe there was > only one project that required the jetty stuff as a compile-scoped > dependency (their Start was in src/main/java), but it was an examples > project. The others are all declared with "test" scope.
