On 08/03/2012 09:15 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
What's the benefit of this approach rather than just having the user adding the
dependencies directly to the plugin (execution) declaration?
Linkage safety. If you have the-plugin built directly against
the-build-tool@1.1.2, and the user
But you were not talking about an adapter solution, were you?
/Anders (mobile)
Den 6 aug 2012 16.28 skrev Jesse Glick jgl...@cloudbees.com:
On 08/03/2012 09:15 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
What's the benefit of this approach rather than just having the user
adding the dependencies directly to
On 08/02/2012 04:58 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
not have a dependency on some library in the plugin itself but rely on it being
declared as a dependency in the Maven project where the plugin is bound. That
made it
totally controllable by the project.
If the build-time code would not normally
What's the benefit of this approach rather than just having the user
adding the dependencies directly to the plugin (execution)
declaration? To me it seems as it would be the same number of xml rows
in the pom and it would make the plugin coding a lot easier.
/Anders
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:56
What I have done in a customer specific plugin, is to not have a
dependency on some library in the plugin itself but rely on it being
declared as a dependency in the Maven project where the plugin is
bound. That made it totally controllable by the project. I don't
remember the exact could, and my
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Anders Hammar and...@hammar.net wrote:
What I have done in a customer specific plugin, is to not have a
dependency on some library in the plugin itself but rely on it being
declared as a dependency in the Maven project where the plugin is
bound. That made it
You want me to help you go down the wrong path? :-)
Don't have the code here (customer closed source), but I believe I saw
it first in some other plugin. Have a look in JBoss's ws maven plugin:
