Hmm, processor is not really a scope, more just a qualifier since it can be used for compile or test scopes and even worse, often processors are provided scope (maybe as a workaround to avoid optional but still a thing in current maven picture).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Le mar. 18 mars 2025 à 09:55, Martin Desruisseaux < martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit : > Le 2025-03-18 à 08 h 05, Thomas Reinhardt a écrit : > > On 17/03/2025 17:03, Matthias Bünger wrote: > >> I'm not an IDE developer, but Maven user and mixing those two, for me > >> independend things, will make it more confusing than simpler. > > Spot on. Please don't mix those. Because we will end up either with > > limited options or an explosion of all valid combinations. > > Also, I am not concerned about a short pom.xml whatsoever. That > > problem is solved by my IDE. > > I mentioned IDE, but it is not the reason for the proposal. We can > forget IDE. The reason is conceptual. The "-processor" suffix in the > type is conceptually a scope, and would fit naturally (I think) in the > current Maven <scope> element. > > Martin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
