At first I thought we could possibly use the <scope>provided</scope> for this. http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Scope
<http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Scope>But, I guess that would probably be a worse practice - because it forces the user to provide it. James, I just don't see a non-hack way around it. What exactly is your usecase? You are using a different version? Newer or older than Wicket's? -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:56 PM, James Carman <[email protected]>wrote: > I guess I see your point (to a point), but it is a pain to have to > exclude it wherever I reference a Wicket submodule. I don't know how > it came up, but I had to add an exclusion to each one of them in my > application to avoid having duplicate copies of slf4j-api.jar on my > classpath. It was pretty annoying. > > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > but each submodule does have a direct dependency on slf4j so it should > > not depend on the wicket module to provide it transiently - that would > > be a hack. > > > > -igor > > > > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:06 AM, James Carman > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can we move the SLF4J dependency from the parent pom.xml file to the > >> wicket module's pom.xml file? Since it's in the root, I have to do > >> excludes for each submodule from wicket (extensions, datetime, etc.) > >> to tell maven not to use the version of SLF4J that they specify. If > >> we put it in wicket's pom.xml file, then each submodule would inherit > >> the dependency from wicket, because they all depend on wicket. > >> > > >
