Is it a bug in the javadoc (not using the compile path) or the compiler (using a dependency it shouldn't)?
The portal server we use already puts log4j into the app server's classpath, so we aren't actually adding that. I have not seen any docs regarding not putting log4j into a container. Looking at the link Jason sent, it would appear that what I am doing fits. I am completely hiding the use of log4j behind the API of the logging project; no other components of our code should have any interest in exactly how the logging is performed. Is "Monitor" a standard pattern I can find somewhere or is that an IoC artifact? -----Original Message----- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 22:18 To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency Question On 8/18/05, Allison, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the correct scope to make this > work (or do I need to explicitly state the dependency on log4j in the > logging project)? Sounds more like a bug in the javadoc plugin. Redeclaring will work as a workaround, but please file a JIRA issue. > > Is this configured properly so that the log4j and log4jext jars won't > get packaged into the war file? You'd need to redeclare the ext jar in the WAR's POM with scope "provided". But also, you should read the docs on the log4j site about why putting log4j into the container is a bad idea (and even better, read the info Jason sent here). Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
