It doesn't *have* to say <type>required</type> cos at the moment, type
isn't used....we can change this to whatever we want....
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
St�phane MOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/25/02 03:34 AM
Please respond to "Turbine Maven Developers List"
To: Turbine Maven Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: extending the notion of dependencies...
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
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
