On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> There is an issue though. The extension meta-data repeats all the >> dependencies that base provides. This actually doesn't make a >> difference because the duplicates don't have a material impact on the >> classpath (other than we might generate a classpath that is too long). >> Aesthetically, and possibly for classpath length reasons, though it's >> not that pleasing and so it could be useful to know when we're dealing >> with extensions to filter our base dependencies from their meta data. >> > > I agree, it would be much nicer if we can get them to only include > their own dependencies so i think we should try to fix that. > > ...ant >
Y, two ways come to mind initially... 1/ We create a pom for each extension and use Maven dependency mechanisms to exclude base dependencies. Is there a way to do that simply? I.e. do an exclude for base and all it's transitive dependencies without having to be explicit. For example, make base a provided dependency. However I presume that means we need to change things across the poms in modules to follow this pattern also. 2/ Alternatively we could rely on bundle plugin like logic which knows internally what the dependencies are and can filter. 2 is initially attractive as it would be straightforward to implement however I don't think its the right ways as it hides the process inside the plugin. Using a pom (1) would seem the most appropriate/obvious way if we can make it work. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
