On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:48, Dan Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:27, Shane Bryzak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Another thing to add to the agenda which we need to discuss is dependency >> scopes. In particular, we need to review our previous decision to make the >> implementation component of a module runtime-scoped, in light of the fact >> that we now no longer have combined jars. >> > > Isn't the idea of having an API and implementation split is that you should > not be compiling against anything in the implementation? Of course, an end > user can choose to override that convention to make the implementation a > compile-time scope, but we don't want to encourage that, do we? > I'll add to that that I really, really don't think that having a single dependency declaration is a holy grail. We have gone to great lengths to have an API for Seam 3 and I think we should advocating the use of it (as separate from the implementation). It's a minor inconvenience to add to the POM (a complexity that Forge can tare), but far less convenient than slipping into a dependency on an implementation class. I do agree that we need to revisit it how it all works, but the goal should be so that the API can be honored and that adding a dependency is consistent from module to module. -Dan -- Dan Allen Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action Registered Linux User #231597 http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
