Re: [wicketstuff] core pom - not used dependencies
Hi Attila, Feel free to improve these projects however you find appropriate. Some of us watch the activity in wicketstuff-core and we will comment if we see anything suspicious. There is also Hudson build that will tell you if you break something. martin-g On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Attila Király kiralyattila...@gmail.comwrote: Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of dependencies in the dependencyManagement section of wicketstuff-core/pom.xml that are actually not used by the modules at all or the modules define the version for it (for example: commons-dbutils, lucene, spring-hibernate3). Are these definitions needed or could they be removed? Attila
Re: [wicketstuff] core pom - not used dependencies
Hi! 2011/2/21 Erik van Oosten e.vanoos...@grons.nl Hi Attila, Are you sure they are not used? They could be used transitively. No, I am not sure that's why I am asking. I searched the poms, the java files and mvn dependency:tree reports but none of them contained the examples I mentioned before. Anyways, in order for core to be consistent, having versions in the modules is not desirable if they are already in the core pom. I agree with you but this is not the case. A lot of modules define the versions for their dependencies. Regards, Erik. Op 20-02-11 20:23, Attila Király wrote: Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of dependencies in the dependencyManagement section of wicketstuff-core/pom.xml that are actually not used by the modules at all or the modules define the version for it (for example: commons-dbutils, lucene, spring-hibernate3). Are these definitions needed or could they be removed? Attila -- Sent from my SMTP compliant software Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: [wicketstuff] core pom - not used dependencies
Hi Atilla, You seem to have covered it. I think you know what you are doing. Regards, Erik. Op 21-02-11 09:23, Attila Király wrote: Hi Attila, Are you sure they are not used? They could be used transitively. No, I am not sure that's why I am asking. I searched the poms, the java files and mvn dependency:tree reports but none of them contained the examples I mentioned before. Anyways, in order for core to be consistent, having versions in the modules is not desirable if they are already in the core pom. I agree with you but this is not the case. A lot of modules define the versions for their dependencies. -- Erik van Oosten http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
[wicketstuff] core pom - not used dependencies
Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of dependencies in the dependencyManagement section of wicketstuff-core/pom.xml that are actually not used by the modules at all or the modules define the version for it (for example: commons-dbutils, lucene, spring-hibernate3). Are these definitions needed or could they be removed? Attila
Re: [wicketstuff] core pom - not used dependencies
Hi Attila, Are you sure they are not used? They could be used transitively. Anyways, in order for core to be consistent, having versions in the modules is not desirable if they are already in the core pom. Regards, Erik. Op 20-02-11 20:23, Attila Király wrote: Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of dependencies in the dependencyManagement section of wicketstuff-core/pom.xml that are actually not used by the modules at all or the modules define the version for it (for example: commons-dbutils, lucene, spring-hibernate3). Are these definitions needed or could they be removed? Attila -- Sent from my SMTP compliant software Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
