Stephen Duncan wrote:
>Sorry, I don't think I was clear in what I want. I'm not talking
>about inclusions INSTEAD of optional scope.
>
I see. So an inclusion would override the optional setting. This makes
sense - though for the benefit (just selecting the same version), it
seems a bit too much
> >4) Create "optional" scope. Rely on repository POM to set this
> >proeprly. Add "inclusions" for optionally-scoped jars that mirrors
> >exclusions for currently passed along jars.
> >
> >
> Inclusions is really just a less agressive version of (2). It is more
> verbose than (1) in the case whe
Our plan with bad metadata is to identify the most popular libraries and clean
them up before 2.0. This includes things like Spring, Hibernate, Dom4J, and
commons-*.
On 9/21/05, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Possible solutions:
>
>1) Manually specify exclusions on everything but op
ompile and test phases
> > >and prevent the dependency from being passed transitively. How would a
> > >developer know which scope to use, other than some verbiage in a
> > >(probably unread) README somewhere?
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
>
t; >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 20:27
> >To: Maven Developers List
> >Subject: Re: optional scope for dependencies
> >
> >
> >Kenney Westerhof wrote:
> >
&g
d prevent the dependency from being passed transitively. How would a
>developer know which scope to use, other than some verbiage in a
>(probably unread) README somewhere?
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 20:27
know which scope to use, other than some verbiage in a
(probably unread) README somewhere?
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 20:27
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: optional scope for dependencies
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
&
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
>scope=provided currently does not do this (but I like it to :))
>
>
>
I thought that was the point - provided doesn't pass along the
dependency, hence can be abused as an optional scope. I'm porposing we
actually have an optional scope that does that. This would effectiv
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to add an optional scope to dependencies as a way to not pass
> them on to projects depending on your library. This would allow fixing
> things like dom4j that pull in extra dependencies.
>
> If we don't do this, I believe scope=prov
