Hi,
A transitive dependency is a dependeny of your dependency.
If you reference a class of that "transitive" dependency, it is not a
dependency of your dependency anymore. It's now also your direct
dependency and hence SHOULD be declared in the POM.
_
Lars
Am 05.04.11 18:32, schrieb Brett Porter:
You're correct, and I think it is behaving as you expect.
What I'm trying to be clear on (which is sometimes hard without pictures):
Let's say B depends on C. Let's say your current project's source code uses
classes from all of A, B and C.
You should declare all 3 dependencies, because you need to compile against
them. You shouldn't rely on not declaring C because B will bring it in -
because B might later change not to, or use a different version.
Now, if you just use A, B - you only compile against A, B, but you run against
A, B, C (because B needs C to run).
The problem in Java is if C contains an abstract class implemented in B, you
need to compile against C, even if you only use classes from A and B.
:)
On 06/04/2011, at 2:11 AM, Khai Do wrote:
Hi Brett. Maybe I don't understand. What do you mean when you say ".NET is not
burdened the same way"? As a best practice (for java projects) I follow the pattern
of only referencing top level modules and letting maven resolve all the transitive
dependencies for me on compile. I believe this is the definition of dependency
management. It seems like your suggesting that .NET is not build the same way and I
shouldn't follow this pattern for npanday builds? Wouldn't this break maven's dependency
management feature? -Khai
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
