Indrajit, your post made me realize that I've been using lift-core
without realizing it. Thanks.

Unfortunately switching to something simpler is giving me some
trouble. I believe that I should be able to add lift-base, but while
its sub-modules get downloaded (lift-common, lift-util, etc), Maven
says that the lift-base module is missing and needs to be installed.
This is the entry I'm using:
<dependency>
  <groupId>net.liftweb</groupId>
  <artifactId>lift-base</artifactId>
  <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>

As the resident Maven expert, do you have any idea what's wrong? My
entire pom.xml is here: http://gist.github.com/262244

Thanks,
Peter

On Dec 22, 8:32 am, Indrajit Raychaudhuri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22/12/09 12:23 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> >     Folks,
>
> >     lift-core is a 'meta' project that can be added as a dependency to a
> >     Lift project to pull in all the Lift modules. This serves as a singular
> >     configuration point in a Lift based application.
>
> >     However, since lift-core downloads all the Lift modules (irrespective of
> >     whether the project needs it), adding this as the dependency slow  down
> >     things for a standard project that doesn't need some additional modules.
>
> >     In a sense, we have moved quite a bit from the initial purpose of having
> >     single dependency on this 'meta' project in a Lift application.
>
> >     Further, the name is a misnomer now!
>
> >     The question, therefore is:
> >     Should we consider deprecating this? If not, we need to document when it
> >     should be preferred and when not. If yes, what should be the time frame
> >     for making the move?
>
> >     With Lift 2.0 coming up,
>
> > Lift 2.0 is not "coming up" it's merely a rename of Lift 1.1 based on
> > the naming rules that Heiko proposed and the Lift community adopted.
> > The fact that the next release of Lift is going to be called 2.0 rather
> > than 1.1 does not change the scope of the release.
>
> Indeed, poor wordings, Lift 2.0 *restructure* coming up is what I meant.
> But yes, it ends up sounding different, sorry.
>
>
>
> > With that being said, deprecating lift-core is fine by me as long as
> > there is an easy to understand deprecation message with clear
> > instructions as to how to replace lift-core with whatever is necessary.
>
> For deprecating dependencies, it's just matter of persuasion
> (Announcement, wiki etc.) for at least two releases, or more (could be
> milestone releases). And eventually, dropping it from the build beyond
> an agreeable release time frame.
>
> I couldn't figure out a clean way of deprecating 'meta' packages since
> it doesn't have any active code (thus doesn't expose any place to code
> in some deprecation warning message).
>
> As such, the package is harmless and there is zero cost of maintenance.
> Just that, it's no more a good practice (longer build time, larger war
> size etc.).
>
>
>
>
>
> >     now might be a good time to make a decision.
> >     Thoughts?
>
> >     Cheers, Indrajit
>
> >     NB: An open question to anybody in the Lift: Who among you are actually
> >     using lift-core in you project and what is the level of impact you
> >     foresee in case you have to move on to have an alternative approach.
>
> >     --
>
> >     You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >     Groups "Lift" group.
> >     To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>.
> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >     [email protected]
> >     <mailto:liftweb%[email protected]>.
> >     For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
> > Surf the harmonics
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Lift" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected].
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.


Reply via email to