> > Won't this be the case either way. The dependencies for tomahawk are > > the dependencies for tomahawk. It doesn't matter if Maven learns this > > exclusively from the tomahawk.pom or from a combination of myfaces.pom > > (parent) and tomahawk.pom. Is this reasoning correct? > > I don't believe so. Myfaces-impl can be used without tomahawk. Tomahawk > can be used without Myfaces-impl. So neither has "transitive > dependencies" on the other project.
That wasn't my assertion. My assertion was that if you have a dependency for tomahawk (lets say commons-digester as a random example) it doesn't matter whether you have the depedency in the top level myfaces/pom.xml or tomahawk/pom.xml. Bill said that if it was in myfaces/pom.xml you would automatically get the digester dependency when you ran maven on the tomahawk project. I agreee with him but my counter assertion was you would also get it if the same dependency was in tomahawk/pom.xml. In otherwords, listing shared dependencies in myfaces/pom.xml gives you very little (and in fact may result in other problems that Wendy and I pointed out.) I've heard the case for why you would define certain plugins in the master pom but I haven't heard the case for dependencies yet. Particularly when I don't think there is a single one that would apply to all modules. > And as an earlier post pointed out, myfaces-impl may depend on > commons-lang 1.1 while tomahawk may depend on commons-lang 1.2. In this > case, people only wanting to use the core myfaces (not tomahawk) should > be able to use just commons-lang 1.1. Only if they add tomahawk do they > need to upgrade the commons-lang library. Right. So this is the argument for keeping the dependencies in their own POMs. > There are transitive dependencies between commons and impl, or commons > and tomahawk. Tomahawk actually has a dependency on api (a compile time one.) If you were to build tomahawk using maven you would need it. If you were to use tomahawk with your own project you would not need it. I'm thinking the "provided" scope would help us here? > Regards, > > Simon > Sean
