[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1732?page=all ]
Brett Porter closed MNG-1732:
-----------------------------
Assign To: Brett Porter
Resolution: Won't Fix
we can answer questions about why this is a bad idea on the dev list
> Improve methods to define the scope and packaging of dependencies
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MNG-1732
> URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1732
> Project: Maven 2
> Type: Improvement
> Versions: 2.0
> Reporter: Bob Allison
> Assignee: Brett Porter
>
>
> I have been thinking about the way the dependency scope is being used, and I
> think there may be a need to expand the scope definitions so that more
> flexibility is available for defining what dependencies get packaged into
> artifacts and what dependencies are used in the various classpaths. My
> thought is to create a new tag on the dependency XML tree called "usage"; it
> would look something like this:
> <dependency>
> <groupId>junit</groupId>
> <artifactId>junit</artifactId>
> <version>3.8.1</version>
> <!--scope>test</scope-->
> <usage>
> <compile>true</compile>
> <test>true</test>
> <execute>false</execute>
> <jar>false</jar>
> <rpm>/usr/local/lib</rpm>
> </usage>
> </dependency>
> I see two classes of items within the <usage> tag:
> -- classpath items (compile, test, execute above) which split out the
> current meaning of the scope value and would have the value of "true" or
> "false" to identify if the dependency should appear on the classpath; the
> default value for these would be "true"
> -- packaging items (jar, rpm above) which control the packaging of the
> dependency into the specified type of artifact and would have the value
> "false" to omit the dependency, "true" to package the dependency in a
> package-specific default location (e.g., wars would default to
> "WEB-INF/lib"), or a path to package the dependency in a specific place in
> the artifact; the default value for these would be "false"
> My expectation is that both <scope> and <usage> would be accepted and that
> <usage> would be configured as a Map. If possible, it would be easier for
> mojos to use this arrangement if specifying <scope> would cause a
> pre-configured <usage> map to be placed in the usage variable so that mojos
> only have to look at the usage map and not interpolate the scope value as
> well.
> I think this may also help with people who have a hard time remembering that
> a scope of "compile" means that the dependency is also available at runtime
> and which scopes make the dependency get packaged into the artifact. It
> would also address some of the "how do I keep my war dependencies from
> appearing in my ear file" type of questions.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
