What about the <optional> attribute in the dependency. Would that solve the problem?
Manfred On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why has myfaces-impl and myfaces-api the scope provided? > > > > Is the myfaces-impl and myfaces-api installed on the container? > > > > The normal user would expect a compile dependency to the myfaces-libs. > > If I like to use the RI instead, I have to exclude the dependency in my > > project and add a dependency to the RI. > > Hmmm. I wasn't aware that was an option. > > > Now I have to declare a dependency to myfaces or the RI im my tomahawk > > or sandbox project everytime. > > Many of our tomahawk users use the RI so I don't see the big deal. > > > Can we switch back to the compile dependency, please. > > Lets see what the others think before we decide. Now that I know > there is an option to exclude the dependency I am more open to your > request. I still think its weird to automatically include the myfaces > core when you declare the tomahawk dependency. > > The user has the option and 50% of our users will probably be using > another implementation. So it seems more appropriate to have a > provided scope. > > > Regards > > > > Bernd > > > > -- > > Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development > > Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com > > phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 > > >
