OK I think runtime will work. Sean
On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, just committed the fixes. Did clean compile and some quick tests > with resulting WARs. Simple and Sandbox examples seem ok now. Wap and > Tiles seem to have some quirks that have nothing to do with my fixes. > > Details: > 1. tomahawk: changed myfaces-impl dependency from compile to test > (Ideally there should not be any dependency at all, but it's ok for > our test classes to use impl code IMO) > 2. tomahawk-examples-project: changed myfaces-impl dependency from > compile to runtime > 3. myfaces-example-simple and myfaces-example-wap: added > commons-logging compile time dependency (was missing) > 4. tomahawk-sandbox: added a TODO comment (there are compile time > dependencies on myfaces-impl that have to get fixed) > 5. tomahawk-sandbox-examples: changed myfaces-impl dependency from > compile to runtime > > Manfred > > > > On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, we don't want examples to depend on myfaces-impl during compile time. > > Yes, we want myfaces-impl to be included in the WAR. > > > > Therefore the correct scope is "runtime" instead of "compile" in this case. > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry meant to say we want those depend on the core. There's no harm > > > there (I think.) > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Wait a sec. The examples are different. We *want* those to depend on > > > > tomahawk and we want the dependencies to be included in the WAR. > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > No, there are still some quirks to be fixed. > > > > > e.g. tomahawk examples must not have compile dependency to impl etc. > > > > > I have already fixed most of this, but I want to make sure that > > > > > everything builds fine and the wars contain every lib that's needed > > > > > before I commit. > > > > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think the dependencies are already the way we want them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, I will now fix all the tomahawk dependencies and do some > > > > > > > tests. > > > > > > > Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/15/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >How would we check if someone accidentally made a mistake and > > > > > > > > >accessed > > > > > > > > >impl in tomahawk? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has happened at least once but it was fixed, so +1 . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dennis Byrne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
