Le samedi 24 décembre 2016, 18:33:06 CET Guillaume Boué a écrit : > Yes, I agree with this. The plugin doesn't need to inspect its own > annotations at runtime, so the dependency is "only needed at > compile-time, unused at run-time". The provided scope may be a bit of an > abuse for lack of a "compile-only" scope... but it works. The current > documentation on how to create plugins is correct, clarifying that > nothing is providing the dependency in MPLUGIN-321 is great. in general, provided dependencies are really provided by a runtime context
then I'm still confident we chose a good term: the annotations case is really something that is uncommon (and even didn't exist at the time when provided scope was defined) Does not deserve to create a new term, that would de-facto be a synonym thanks for the feedback Regards, Hervé --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
