On Nov 15, 2007 3:30 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > If > > implementation-data needs derby to be used then whats wrong with > defining > > that as a dependency? > implementation-data doesn't require derby, you should be able to use it > with another database. > > > Thats like we do with wstx isn't it, there are other > > stax impls available but we still explictly define the wstx one. > > > Is that a good thing? :) I don't think so. > What is a better alternative? The problem is coming up with something thats simple for first time Tuscany users as well as being flexable for more advanced users. If we take out the dependecy for wstx or derby or whatever else then thats simpler for advanced users who know what they're doing and can specify exactly what they want to use but then things don't work out-of-the-box which isn't good for new users. If we have the dependency then thats easiest for new users as things just work, its not quite as simple for the advanced users who want to customize it to use something else but it is still possible for them as they just need to remove the jar they don't want with something like an <exclude>. ...ant
