Hi, On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 03.06.2008, 17:14 +0300 schrieb Jukka Zitting: >> I'm trying to understand the issue, do you have an example of a case >> where this would be troublesome? > > It is not directly troublesome, more like annoying - and sometimes really > confusing. > > I cannot rememeber exactly what problems compile type dependencies pose, > but at one time I had log4j dependencies which just blew out because the > defined compile type dependencies too generously.
Yeah, there are quite a few cases where libraries are too eager to bring in optional libraries as hard dependencies. A good example is the recent log4j 1.2.15, see http://yoavs.blogspot.com/2008/05/caution-log4j-1215-brings-in-bunch-of.html. Anyway, if your component depends for example on log4j 1.2.15, it's much better to explicitly exclude such transitive dependencies than to mark the entire log4j dependency as optional and then work around that in the bundle packaging. BR, Jukka Zitting
