Brett Porter wrote:
I agree. But I don't think it's unnecessary, at least when used with
ant, and it's the first aim of ivy. But if you feel it's unnecessary
in maven, I'll never say you're wrong ! And if this is the case, I'm
afraid we won't be able to use poms as metadata.
I don't know how w
> I agree. But I don't think it's unnecessary, at least when used with
> ant, and it's the first aim of ivy. But if you feel it's unnecessary
> in maven, I'll never say you're wrong ! And if this is the case, I'm
> afraid we won't be able to use poms as metadata.
>
I don't know how we keep coming
Brett Porter wrote:
Test was only an example... in ivy, configurations are not limited
(you can use the name you want), and we assume nothing about their
transitivity. It's the developer who choose, by describing its
configurations mapping: in my "buildtime" I need xdoclet "runtime",
for example. S
> Test was only an example... in ivy, configurations are not limited
> (you can use the name you want), and we assume nothing about their
> transitivity. It's the developer who choose, by describing its
> configurations mapping: in my "buildtime" I need xdoclet "runtime",
> for example. So I can a
Brett Porter wrote:
Xavier Hanin wrote:
I was just fixing that and about to put it in the user's guide... test
dependencies are not transitive.
Test was only an example... in ivy, configurations are not limited (you
can use the name you want), and we assume nothing about their
transitivity.
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:00 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: maven and ivy
>
>
> Maczka Michal wrote:
>
> >I also think that splitting the pom of artifact into so
Xavier Hanin wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Depending on pom already works.
>>
>>
> And how does it work ? I mean, if I depend on a pom which itself
> defines a dependency on junit only for its tests, for instance, will I
> get it ?
> If yes, what if I do not use junit in my tests ?
I was ju
Brett Porter wrote:
Depending on pom already works.
And how does it work ? I mean, if I depend on a pom which itself defines
a dependency on junit only for its tests, for instance, will I get it ?
If yes, what if I do not use junit in my tests ?
Regards,
Xavier
--
==
Maczka Michal wrote:
>I also think that splitting the pom of artifact into some group is a bad
>idea. But group (composite)
>dependencies are about something else. They provide useful shortcut method
>for including multiple artifacts in projects
>via declaration of just a single dependency.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:48 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: maven and ivy
>
>
> Michal Maczka wrote:
>
> > Group Dependencies (aka composite artifacts) is the fe
> Unfortunaetly I don't know Maven 2 dependency handling quite well
> enough, but it seems to me that even Maven 2 doesn't go quite far
> enough there.
Can you give an example of where Maven 2 "doesn't go quite far enough",
other than that we've already discussed?
Maven2's transitive dependenci
Michal Maczka wrote:
> Group Dependencies (aka composite artifacts) is the feature which
> enables to define a single dependency on multiple artifacts.
>
> Depenedecny Group is the feature which allows to logically group
> dependencies in poms and for example
> mark some dependencies as optional.
Michal Maczka wrote:
Xavier Hanin wrote:
Hi all,
To give a bit more of context on this discussion, the starting point
was brett's blog titled "Ivy: do we really need more metadata?":
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/brett/archives/001023_ivy_do_we_really_need_more_metadata.html
If I still agree
Xavier Hanin wrote:
Hi all,
To give a bit more of context on this discussion, the starting point
was brett's blog titled "Ivy: do we really need more metadata?":
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/brett/archives/001023_ivy_do_we_really_need_more_metadata.html
If I still agree that it would be much
Hi all,
To give a bit more of context on this discussion, the starting point was
brett's blog titled "Ivy: do we really need more metadata?":
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/brett/archives/001023_ivy_do_we_really_need_more_metadata.html
If I still agree that it would be much better to have only
(context - email from Xavier Hanin, Ivy developer, regarding using m2
POMs in Ivy)
Xavier Hanin wrote:
> I understand, I have no request for the moment cause I don't have
> enough knowledge of m2 poms. And that's why I am asking for help from
> your side... if you could point me to a doc where i
16 matches
Mail list logo
