James Strachan wrote: >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>James, 'type' isn't being used for anything..... >> > >It may not be used inside Maven for anything but pretty much everyone's >project.xml says <type>required</type> so I didn't want to force everyone to >hack their project.xml documents. > >I guess we could assume that the default type is 'required' which means >'required for compiling' then we could just use <type>test</type> or ><type>doc</type> or some other custom type such as <type>my.test.A</type>. >So maybe reusing the existing <type> isn't such a bad thing. > >James > The first time I saw the <type> tags, I thought they were meant to do this : use different jars for different things.
A <type>war</type>, or "webapp", or whatever would be nice so that we don't include checkstyle, or dvsl, and others when not needed. It makes webapps bigger, too ... Just having to specify <type>required</type> when it actually does nothing is quite useless, IMO, whereas it could be really useful. We would just have to decide on the accepted types, such as : - webapp / war - documentation - compiling - runtime - test - iutest - ... They could be sorted by concern in the "dependencies.xml" file, too ... My 2 EUR-cents, St�phane
