On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote:
> As one of the main downstream users of Sisu would you prefer it to declare > a provided scope dependency to (sisu-)guice rather than the current compile > scope dependency? > Not really. > Making it provided should make it easier to swap in alternative versions > while still documenting the dependency - and avoid lots of tedious > exclusions. The only downside I can see is that downstream users like the > Maven runtime would then need to explicitly remember to add the > (sisu-)guice dependency in their final application artifact/assembly (and > potentially in some tests) as it would no longer be transitively included. > (though that might be a good thing documentation-wise) > > WDYT? I think you understand what the requirements are, and we need the additional changes for it all to work well. I don't think it's very practical to accommodate variants when we can't really use stock Guice. When all the patches are in, which you do your best to integrate, then we can switch. As the one doing the core releases right now I don't see any benefit of swapping in alternate versions. Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- Script timed out
