Hi,

Was the usage of "provided" to avoid the inclusions of such jars into the WAR?

Since the "provided" artifact is not pulled in by maven transitive 
dependencies, they won't be added to the distribution (in turn PDE target 
platform) unless we explicitly declare them in the feature/distribution poms. 
So we either need to exclude them from the WAR  (via provided scope or 
exclusions) or use the provided scope but redeclare them in the 
feature/distribution poms. 

Thanks,
Raymond

Raymond Feng
[email protected]
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:18 AM, ant elder wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:46 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Author: lresende
>> Date: Thu Apr 22 04:46:56 2010
>> New Revision: 936611
>> 
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=936611&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Changing stripes dependency scope to properly generate OSGi 'bundle' and 
>> avoid issues with stripes module manifest
>> 
>> Modified:
>>    tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/stripes/pom.xml
>> 
>> Modified: tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/stripes/pom.xml
>> URL: 
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/stripes/pom.xml?rev=936611&r1=936610&r2=936611&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/stripes/pom.xml (original)
>> +++ tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/stripes/pom.xml Thu Apr 22 04:46:56 
>> 2010
>> @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
>>             <groupId>net.sourceforge.stripes</groupId>
>>             <artifactId>stripes</artifactId>
>>             <version>1.5.2</version>
>> -            <scope>provided</scope>
>>         </dependency>
>> 
>>         <dependency>
>> 
> 
> What are the problems caused by using a scope of provided? Using
> compile scope means it gets included all the time which isn't really
> whats wanted which is why it was using provided scope. I guess i could
> fix that by using excludes in other places but it would be better to
> fix the osgi problem so provided scope works.
> 
>   ...ant

Reply via email to