This gets back to the point that Maven/etc already do that. We shouldn't be re-inventing the build tools.
Malachi de Ælfweald http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > The other potential use case I have identified is when two modules carry > transitive dependencies of the same package structures. Module A drags in > Module B, Module C drags in Module D, but both B and D are code clones of > each other. In a realistic scenario, B and D could be Apache Commons Lang > under different module names. In this type of situation, duplicate packages > need to be avoided and I have to eliminate one of these transitive > dependencies at both source and runtime. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote: > >> On 27 Jul 2016, at 8:27, Malachi de Ælfweald wrote: >> >> > I would not expect to specify any transitive dependency. I would not >> > expect any user of my API to have to manually specify any transitive >> > dependencies I used in my public API (return types for example). If >> they >> > did - that completely breaks the point of me specifying transitive >> > dependencies in the first place. >> >> My view on this - if your code requires those dependencies to compile or >> be resolved by the class loader, it should be declared - otherwise its an >> internal dependency of that module and (could) be pulled in transitively to >> RUN/TEST. >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Derricutt >> http://www.theoryinpractice.net >> http://www.chaliceofblood.net >> http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt >> http://twitter.com/talios >> http://facebook.com/mderricutt >> > >