> At test runtime I presume? You use the test scope. Is it
> hurting anything if it's there on the test compile classpath?
Its an example of how the scope definition is overloaded. Whether or not
it hurts anything is moot.
-
To
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
>
> > Are there many cases where you want something for compilation
> > that isn't needed at runtime? I don't see them as being separate.
>
> Really? I am surprised. Yes there is a relation between compile and
> runtime. However, there is a di
Just created http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4156
Regards,
Stevo.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Mark Hobson wrote:
> 2009/5/11 Brian Fox :
> > At face value the logic seems to make sense, but I haven't thought
> through
> > all the ramifications. I thought Mark Hobson mentioned some case
2009/5/11 Brian Fox :
> At face value the logic seems to make sense, but I haven't thought through
> all the ramifications. I thought Mark Hobson mentioned some cases where the
> opposite was desired. At this point your best bet is to prepare a proposal
> on http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUS
2009/5/11 Todd Thiessen
> > I think the answer here is that nobody had a good example at the
> time!
>
> And even when you do, you can use exclusions which you interesting
> mention in your next response ;-). So if you want a particular compile
> transitive dependency to be included only as test
> I think the answer here is that nobody had a good example at the
time!
And even when you do, you can use exclusions which you interesting
mention in your next response ;-). So if you want a particular compile
transitive dependency to be included only as test, exclude it and add it
to your local
2009/5/11 Todd Thiessen
>
> > Are there many cases where you want something for compilation
> > that isn't needed at runtime? I don't see them as being separate.
>
> Really? I am surprised. Yes there is a relation between compile and
> runtime. However, there is a different relation between compi
> Are there many cases where you want something for compilation
> that isn't needed at runtime? I don't see them as being separate.
Really? I am surprised. Yes there is a relation between compile and
runtime. However, there is a different relation between compile and
test. Scope has multiple mea
2009/5/10 Stevo Slavić
> "Just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that's how they should
> be.", said a character in the movie "Australia".
>
I dig that.
>
> In this particular scenario, local test scoped dependency vs compile scope
> transitive dependency, it's my opinion that cur
"Just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that's how they should
be.", said a character in the movie "Australia".
In this particular scenario, local test scoped dependency vs compile scope
transitive dependency, it's my opinion that current strategy is wrong. Local
test scoped dependenc
By local I mean the pom currently being built. Stuff defined here always
overrides dependencies and transitive dependencies.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Stevo Slavić wrote:
> Is there any reason why would local win in this particular case?
>
> Regards,
> Stevo.
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5
Is there any reason why would local win in this particular case?
Regards,
Stevo.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Todd Thiessen
> wrote:
>
> > Override the dependency defined in the POM, as Steve outline in his
> > earlier response. Let me qu
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
> Override the dependency defined in the POM, as Steve outline in his
> earlier response. Let me quote his explanation for ease of reference:
>
> "E.g. if project P has test scoped dependency to a LIB1, and compile
> scoped dependency to LIB2,
to a single variable.
---
Todd Thiessen
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Fox [mailto:bri...@infinity.nu]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: Re: Transitive and inherited dependencies -
> potential bug, or my misunderstanding
2009/5/8 Todd Thiessen
> Your argument Jorg I think applies to provided and runtime scope, but not
> to test.
>
> The root smell here lies in the definition of "scope". Test scope means
> needed to compile test code. Compile scope means needed to compile
> production and test code. These are bo
Your argument Jorg I think applies to provided and runtime scope, but not to
test.
The root smell here lies in the definition of "scope". Test scope means needed
to compile test code. Compile scope means needed to compile production and test
code. These are both related to when a dependency i
16 matches
Mail list logo
