I don't see any problem with introducing optional dependencies. For example, commons-logging is a library that has about half-a-dozen optional dependencies, one for each concrete logging library that it has built-in support for. This causes no problems at all AFAIK.
The only thing to look out for is where an optional dependency itself has complex dependencies that may conflict with dependencies of other optional components; for example libA depends on libZ version 1.x, but libB depends on libZ version 2.x. When compiling a maven project, all the transient dependencies need to be on the classpath at the same time. So Facelets utils could be a problem in this case, if they depend on JSF12. JODA would not; according to the following pom it has no dependencies at all: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/joda-time/joda-time/1.5/joda-time-1.5.pom Cheers, Simon ---- Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > +1 > > Regarding dependencies: > We should be careful about dependencies in jsfcommons. Right. > The Joda converter would be a candidate for an *optional* compile > dependency. > > --Manfred > > > > On 10/31/07, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Although it'll create a dependency, Joda is great:) so +1. > > > > Cagatay > > > > On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > What are the thoughts about providing a Joda DateTime converter in the > > > upcoming commons project ?
