Re: [jira] Commented: (MNG-415) allow exclusion of certain depend encies from inclusion in an archive

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Maczka Michal wrote:

>What was surprising to me is that you have disqualified this proposition in
>2 minutes without even reading with attention what I have written in my jira
>comment and judged it as something "too complicated".
>  
>
I started to reply to your invidual points until I got to this. I've 
given your responses careful consideration and detailed replies, and 
spent reasonable time on it. Sorry you feel this way.

>So if you are saying: scopes in m2 are not going to change and this is not
>something which we are ever going to consider - I think that this discussion
>is useless and I am not going to waste my precious time anymore.
>  
>
This is not only my call to make, so I will bring this up again in the 
design discussions next week, and see if there is some consensus among 
people working in here. What you do with your time is up to you.

The problems you have highlighted centre around believing there is a 
need for a compile time dependency that is not runtime. This stems from 
believing runtime equates to bundling. Runtime is not only bundling - it 
is also used for classpath construction, such as for the execution of 
javadoc.

An alternative has been proposed which we will discuss alongside the 
other design items: scope = container.  This takes the bundling into 
consideration, separate from runtime as it should be. A container scoped 
dependency would be available at compile, run and test time, but would 
not be bundled. This was a quick idea from Jason, but its the best 
alternative I've heard so far.

- Brett



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org