On 24/04/2007, at 2:18 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:


On 23 Apr 07, at 8:06 PM 23 Apr 07, Brett Porter wrote:

This sounds reasonable to me, but I think there's lots of things that work on the assumption of one pom per g/a/v. So the attached artifact should also get a new artifact ID

A new id if you are going to deploy separate artifacts, or the original id and never deploying differently i.e. if you choose to uber and change the POM you must always do that. If someone chooses to always deploy like that is the standard way the world deals with that artifact not changing it is fine.

Makes sense - so that's a different packaging too, I assume. This would be a better alternative to the WAR and EAR scenarios (currently, WAR is all or nothing). You can deprecate the artifact type handler field that indicates if the deps are transitive or not then.

However, what about rewriting the deps with a new scope instead? (maybe 'included', maybe 'provided' already works). I think the dependency information is useful to have, still - just want it excluded from the resolution later on.

- Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to