2011/11/8 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>: > > On 08/11/2011, at 8:15 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >> Yes, we were using that approach for years now and it turned out to be >> too error prone as you have to keep the plugin configuration and the >> dependency list in sync. It doesn't sound like a hard task first, but >> in our case it caused trouble many times. That's why we would like to >> have a single point of information. > > So, wildcards or excludes lists don't help with the sync task? There's no > convention that can be applied (e.g. all dependencies of a certain type, or > the same group ID as the project)?
No, unfortunately not - we have a large list of dependencies with different group ids, all having the same type, so while some share the same group id, in the end we have to list each and every artidact id. > > How would you handle transitive dependencies? We don't consider transitive dependencies, so we just include stuff which is really listed in this pom. In the end this is the application assembly which builds the final distribution based on modules. So we list all the modules as direct dependencies to avoid any surprises through transitive dependencies. And we just need additional information on a per module base. This info must also be defined outside of the module, so we can't just include it in the module artifact as the info might vary from app to app and third party modules are involved. Regards Carsten > > - 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 > > -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
