On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 21:11 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > or should we try to create a POM for commons-logging-api or perhaps both? > > not sure > > the API works best as a virtual dependency. it can be satisfied by JCL > 1.0.x, 1.1.x, by ceki's adapter or by Torsten's null implementation. not > sure whether maven 2 handles this ATM.
Not sure what you mean by "a virtual dependency". I think the api jar should never be used as a dependency by anyone; it's really only for the use of tomcat. If other people provide jars that define classes o.a.c.l.Log and LogFactory, then that can be used as a dependency *instead* of depending on anything from the commons-logging group. Is that what you meant? > > but the API jar contains more than is necessary for this purpose. > probably carlos is right that all the dependencies need to be marked as > optional but the full JCL jar shipped. > > not sure... I'd agree with this. Just mark all dependencies as optional. I've put the same comments on the original JIRA issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MEV-392 Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
