Just for grins, do you know who added "import" scope (and hence, support for BOM poms) to Maven?
BOM poms are quite useful when you have a set of projects that are independently versioned, but when they all have the same version the usefulness disappears as you will typically just define a variable such as log4j.version, assign it a value, and then use it on all the Log4j dependencies. Yes, you can just specify the BOM pom in the dependency management section, but in the vast majority of cases I would expect users are only going to use 2 or 3 Log4j jars. Ironically, I created import scope because we had a project where the individual subprojects were independently versioned. When we switched to have them all use the same version we dropped the BOM pom. Fro these reasons I don't think we need to emphasize using the BOM pom. At the same time, I don't see a problem mentioning it with an example in the Maven section of the doc. Ralph > On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > See for example any of the guides at Arquillian > <http://arquillian.org/guides/>. Using a BOM pom is handy as a way to keep > dependency groups in sync. It also allows for smaller pom.xml files. I'm not > sure what an equivalent script would be using Ivy, but that sort of > documentation and support might be rather useful as well. > > I'll make the changes in a branch to show what I mean. > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
