On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Mike Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > > Folks, > > I agree with these observations that Raymond makes. > > It seems problematic to mark things in the build as "provided" given that > there is a range of target runtimes - if there one or more of those target > runtimes which does not provide the relevant dependencies. And that does > seem to be the case at the moment. > > I agree with Raymond that it seems more logical to perform the work of > including or excluding specific dependency JARs at the point that the > relevant distributions are produced, since at that point, it is possible to > describe the characteristics of that runtime. > > A problem I see with the point that we've reached now is that the > distribution/all does not "do what it says on the tin" - in that it is NOT > the complete set of Tuscany dependencies any longer, but some subset. > > > Yours, Mike. >
+1 -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
