Is scope=provided transitive? I believe it isn't [1], which means that
all maven-core consumers will have to pick a version of guice to be able
to use maven core and manually update guice dependency each time they
update maven dependency version.
At the same time, replacing guice with a different version does not
require that many exclusions, at least this is the case for m2e embedded
maven runtime [2].
I believe current setup provides the best balance between easy of use
and flexibility to customize and my preference is to keep it as is.
[1]
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Scope
[2]
http://git.eclipse.org/c/m2e/m2e-core.git/tree/m2e-maven-runtime/org.eclipse.m2e.maven.runtime/pom.xml
--
Regards,
Igor
On 2013-08-22 11:57 PM, Stuart McCulloch 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?
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
