Hey.
I was thinking about the best-practice (I hate that word) of
including all direct dependencies in a pom even if you would get the
code transitively (in case transitive relationships are changed
behind the scenes). This makes sense, but it makes me wonder if the
compile phase sho
Nothing like original thought, huh? :)
Never mind then - good to know. Count this e-mail as a moral +1 on
that feature should it ever come to vote.
Christian.
On May 24, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I think we have this planned for 2.1. I know it's been discussed
before.
---
I think we have this planned for 2.1. I know it's been discussed before.
-Original Message-
From: Christian Gruber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:13 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: thought about a change to compile scope.
Hey.
I was thinking
Not planned to my knowledge. Maven used to do it, and it didn't work
because you sometimes need a compile scope dependency transitively
(the classic example being extending an abstract class from a
different package).
The better solution is to add the ability to export your dependencies
i
Good point. The abstract one should be obvious, sorry. Definitely
needs a rethink. Another option would be for putting analysis of the
actual java classes into the artifact metadata somewhere (not the
pom, the manifest). Then you could analyze which artifacts supplied
which dependant r
On 25/05/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we have this planned for 2.1. I know it's been discussed before.
You may be confusing this with a similar issue planned for 2.1:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2589
I think what Christian is proposing is something akin to Maven
On 24 May 07, at 8:00 PM 24 May 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Not planned to my knowledge. Maven used to do it, and it didn't
work because you sometimes need a compile scope dependency
transitively (the classic example being extending an abstract class
from a different package).
It was discu
