On 28/06/2011, at 7:46 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > The tomcat wars are NOT provided. The idea is to grab them from the > repositories, copy them to the local repo, and have the tomcat plugin > 'collect them all.' > > I didn't know that maven already had the concept of non-classpath > artifact types. I've been laboring under the idea that these things > would end up in the classpath if not excluded somehow.
Right - you should be declaring a new type in a plugin that can turn off <addedToClasspath/> - or use a packaging type like zip which wasn't already. > > Tomcat could stop using the special scope, but then it would need to > redundantly list these artifacts in its own config, unless the author > were willing to take the attitude that *all* war dependencies should > be launched. Using foo:bar syntax instead of a nest of XML that is > perhaps not too awful, but it still feels like listing the same thing > twice. Hmm: how does the new site plugin avoid this? With the new site > plugin, can you built a reporting plugin in the reactor and then use > it in a site? I bet not. > > In short, I'm arguing for some idea of annotating dependencies to > avoid redundantly calling them out in plugins, but I'm not arguing > terribly loudly. The currently recommended approach to this is to filter the list of dependencies with includes/excludes configuration in the plugin, like the dependency plugin does. This doesn't require duplicating as much information since you can use some short hand. - Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
