We've so far opted not to do this (basically an optional dependency) as it can encourage poorly specified poms to stay that way. Basically by saying this you are saying to those depending on you "you may need tis jar at some point, but I can't tell you when". That's going to manifest in a class cast exception. It really is a dependency, and instead we allow the dependee to exclude the ones it knows it doesn't need.
This is more tedious though, and I'm not currently certain whether it is better to allow optinoal dependencies to aid in this. - Brett Joerg Hohwiller wrote: > Hi there, > > John Casey wrote: > > >try adding <inherit>true</inherit> to the plugin definition at the top > >level...I can't remember whether the compiler plugin inherits by default > >or not (my suspicions are "not"). > > > Not about POM inheritance but about dependency inheritance (transitive > dependencies): > > Can I also put <inherit>false</inherit> to a dependency definition so it > will not be inherited. E.g. if commons-logging does not want to carry > out all of their supported implementations? > > Regards > Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
