On 12/1/06, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And in fact, one can actually remove the transitive dependencies that are unwanted during the build classpath by declaring them in the POM as "provided." I believe that fits his scenario where he is building against a library that has a transitive dependency that he does not want on his build classpath for whatever reason (packaging, etc.).
My understanding is the "provided" is essentially the opposite of "runtime" ... it leaves the dependency on the compile classpath but does not include it in the output. Whereas, "runtime" leaves it off the compile classpath but does include it in the output. In a web app, I'll want to declare the servlet API as a "provided" API so that I can use it in my own code. The servlet container will make it available to me at runtime, so I don't want to include it in the war. But, if I'm also using something like the MyFaces JSF implementation, which has both an API jar and an implementation JAR, I'll want the API jar declared as "compile" scope (so its on the classpath and included in the war), but the impl JAR declared "runtime" scope (so it is *not* possible for me to accidentally compile against classes in the MyFaces implementation, where I should be programming solely to JSF APIs), but is included so that the runtime app will work. Craig -aps Craig On 12/1/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/1/06, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This maybe an artifact of the fact that many plugins use the classpath > for > > runtime constraints as well. > > > It's also possible to avoid this behavior, by declaring a scope of > <runtime> > on the dependency. That way, the module is *not* included on the compile > time classpath (unless it's declared with compile scope by someone else > you > depend on), but *is* included for runtime (for example, in a webapp it'd > be > included in WEB-INF/lib). > > -aps > > > Craig > > -- "What lies behind us and what lies in front of us is of little concern to what lies within us." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
