For shared dependencies this makes sense. However, I don't think this
should be the case for non-shared dependencies. For example, if only
my Foo extension depends on Bar, Bar should be called out in Foo's
pom, not higher up.
Jim
On Nov 7, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Rick wrote:
You can override that in a specific module (pom.xml) by explicitly
having a specific version in your dependency. In general I like a
place where we see all the dependencies. As a practice when we
override in lower pom.xmls we could comment that we've done this.
My gut feel is overriding at lower levels would be the rare
exception and not the rule.
Jim Marino wrote:
If we take the latter approach, do we list ALL external
dependencies there to be consistent?
I don't think we should list all dependencies there for a couple
of reasons:
1. We need to be modular in the extensions and I'm concerned that
by doing this we will wind up with a large list of dependencies in
one location that cannot be managed easily (i.e. every time an
extension changes, we need to modify the master pom)
2. We will likely run into issues when two or more extensions
require different versions of the same dependency.
How would we handle these cases under this approach?
Jim
If we feel this should change should we still do this for M2
release?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
