Couldn't the thing thats packaging the ear/war do an exclude of the artifact that they don't want included? Isn't it a bit unusual to have a required dependency like this have a scope of provided.
...ant On 7/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was a discussion a while back on this on tuscany-dev. I can't find a mailing list archive that has this discussion so I paste the response below. The upshot is that we, SDO, need the scope=provided to avoid the unnecessary packaging of the jar into an ear/war. If you need the jar packaged due to a dependency on SDO, then you must express an explicit dependency yourself in your own pom. Regards, Kelvin. ================ Maven help us to manage the dependencies by using the pom.xml which we can define the dependency relationship. The dependency relationship can be used when maven need to setup the class path or do the packaging. Here is some note for "provided" that you can get from the book "Better Builds with Maven": "You should note that you're using a provided scope instead of the default compile scope. The reason is that this dependency will already be present in the environment (being the J2EE application server) where your EJB will execute. You make this clear to Maven by using the provided scope; this prevents the EAR module from including the J2EE JAR when it is packaged.Eventhough this dependency is provided at runtime, it still needs to be listed in the POM so that the code can be compiled." And if your module A unit test need the C jar in the runtime, because you had set C jar as the provided scope in the other module B, you own A module will not take this dependency from module B even your have the dependence from B. So you need to add the C jar's dependency as the <scope> test </ scope> in the module A's pom.xml :). ================== On 12/07/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Should the scope also be changed ? Now that this is not optional > anymore, it should be on the distribution as well, right ? > > On 7/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Author: kelvingoodson > > Date: Thu Jul 12 01:31:01 2007 > > New Revision: 555532 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=555532 > > Log: > > TUSCANY-1371 - stax is not now optional since the HelperContextImpl > carries an XMLStreamHelper instance > > > > Modified: > > incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/pom.xml > > > > Modified: incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/pom.xml > > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/pom.xml?view=diff&rev=555532&r1=555531&r2=555532 > > > ============================================================================== > > --- incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/pom.xml (original) > > +++ incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/pom.xml Thu Jul 12 01:31:01 2007 > > @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ > > <artifactId>stax-api</artifactId> > > <version>1.0.1</version> > > <scope>provided</scope> > > - <optional>true</optional> > > </dependency> > > > > <!-- dependencies for test cases --> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
