On 10/10/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:54 AM, ant elder wrote: > Yes that seems to fix it so I've committed a fix to correct that. > Thanks! > > Any reason why its not <groupId> like in a regular maven dependency > element? The names reflect the underlying API. This is not a Maven <dependency> element and may be used to access artifacts from repos that are not Maven based. The syntax does not support all of Maven's capabilities. If we want to couple this to Maven then I think we should support the actual element from the Maven namespace.
I wonder if I'm going to be the only one that does a cutNpaste and gets this wrong, would it be so bad if it was the same? That doesn't mean it has to be the actual maven <dependency> element. ...ant
