There's no web app in here, it's just code that imports MongoDB classes. Yes it can be made 'provider' scope; it still means a lesser overhead of downloading the dependency. (kfs has been removed BTW.) I think we have the answer of farming this out to an 'integration' module that was have already under the wrong name.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see a problem with an extra module if the webapp can somehow resolve > the reference at run-time. > > And if the artifacts are in Maven, how bad is it to include them as > dependencies? If these could be made optional dependencies with "provided" > scope, then anybody who doesn't use them wouldn't notice the lack. Hadoop > does this with kfs, for instance. Nobody uses kfs any more, but they could > if they wanted and nobody else has to resolve the dependency. > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Weird as it sounds, I think the best place is mahout-taste-webapp. >> Once the module is renamed it'll make more sense. But if you make a >> patch against that module with the right pom.xml changes it ought to >> be 99.9% what is needed. >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Fernando Tapia Rico >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > yep, I completely understand your concerns. So...What should I do? cos >> > I guess that I need to know where to place this to open the JIRA >> > ticket. I don't have any rush, I can wait until you guys decide what >> > is the best option for this DataModel. >> >
