Le 2025-03-17 à 13 h 42, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
(about <scope> being closely related to which plugin us it):
This is a quite dangerous target cause you will end up with scope =
plugin to keep it useable.
Not necessarily. This is only a convenience for a common pattern.
Plugins can filter the dependencies based on the scope when convenient,
but they don't have to.
This is why i think just having a group flag and being able to request
groups, potentially alias a set of groups for easiness is sufficent
moving forward and embracing all the work you started to do.
Participants of the module-tooling initiative [1] noted that this
approach requires plugins to parse the group or type identifier as a
dash-separated string. For example, "modular-processor" requires to
separate the "processor" part for identifying that it applies to
annotation processor, then the "modular" part for identifying how to use
it. The separation between <type> and <scope> avoid the need to parse
the string, thus making easier for plugins to filter the dependencies.
The filtering condition is up to plugins — there is no "scope = plugin"
requirement — the proposal only makes the task easier while fitting
nicely in existing Maven model.
Martin
[1]https://github.com/nipafx/module-tooling/discussions/2
