I guess I'm a little behind in this thread: 1st, I think dependency:list is effectively the same as the existing dependency:resolve is it not? The artifacts need to be resolved if you are going to include transitive stuff.
2nd, I like this suggestion best so far: "dependency:<scope> -Dtype=<list|tree> then everybody has the possibility to configure a property in his settings for the preferred view type ..." Although I'm on the fence about having to make a separate goal for each. I think this is still very close to resolve. It would be nice if there was a way to alias a goal to something that exists and default the params without having to create a whole new class. The existing resolve goal needs to be tweaked a little to allow it to function even if some artifacts can't be resolved (a fail at end essentially) since its initial reason for existence was to quickly force a download of everything needed for going offline, or to test proxies etc. If you do this on a tree that has internal dependencies, it will die out before it completes unless you have already built it (negating most cases of needing to resolve). Skipping those artifacts would work around it. The change needed is to remove the requiresDependencyResolution flag and programaticaly resolve them...the code already exists since the copy/unpack goals do it anyway. -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jörg Schaible Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:15 PM To: dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: [m2] Adding further dependency goals Mark Hobson wrote: > On 17/01/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, it's an own internal plugin. We have >> >> info:deps-<scope> >> >> Unfortunately it is developed at the office and my employer refused >> to sign the CCLA. Therefore the code is tainted for contribution :( > > No worries, we have the dependency-tree shared component and > help:dependencies goal to work with now. > >> Too much typing for a command you will really use very often once >> you're used to it. Just make the tree mojo abstract and derive the >> three different ones that set the scope in the ctor. > > Perhaps, but I was thinking about the number of goals once we > introduce tree and list goals for every scope. Would we name them > dependency:compile-tree, dependency:compile-list, etc.? That's ten > extra goals, I'm not sure if it's easier just to type dependency:tree > -Dscope=compile. 10? I just count 6 instead of two ... only 3 scopes make sense - or? What about: dependency:<scope> -Dtype=<list|tree> then everybody has the possibility to configure a property in his settings for the preferred view type ... [snip] - 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]
