How about: groupId:artifactId:version? Eric
On 12/31/05, Grégory Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi list, > > This might sound like a silly question, and very superficial - I will > concede that ;) - but I was wondering if there was a prefered or > suggested way to communicate dependencies. By "communicating > dependencies", I mean, for instance, when writing a blog post or any > kind of documentation, it happens that I need to tell the reader > something like "should you want to use this in your project, you could > add a dependency like..." and then I'm faced with the dilemma of being > copy/paste friendly and giving the 6 lines of xml to the maven-style > dependency or not.. because it clutters the flow of text quite a bit, > might not interest everybody and other more-or-less valid reasons not > do so. OTOH, saying "add a dependency to foo/bar" might also leave > readers perplex as to what this means at all. > > So if anybody has a add a smart idea regarding this, to quickly and > efficiently communicate maven-style dependencies in a readable, > compact and precise way, I'd be glad to hear ! > > Happy new year ! :) > > g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
