ant elder wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 3:30 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
If
implementation-data needs derby to be used then whats wrong with
defining
that as a dependency?
implementation-data doesn't require derby, you should be able to use it
with another database.
Thats like we do with wstx isn't it, there are other
stax impls available but we still explictly define the wstx one.
Is that a good thing? :) I don't think so.
What is a better alternative? The problem is coming up with something thats
simple for first time Tuscany users as well as being flexable for more
advanced users.
If we take out the dependecy for wstx or derby or whatever else then thats
simpler for advanced users who know what they're doing and can specify
exactly what they want to use but then things don't work out-of-the-box
which isn't good for new users. If we have the dependency then thats easiest
for new users as things just work, its not quite as simple for the advanced
users who want to customize it to use something else but it is still
possible for them as they just need to remove the jar they don't want with
something like an <exclude>.
...ant
OK, you're right. Not having the derby dependency in
implementation-data/pom.xml (and only bring it in through the distro
assembly) will simplify the life of developers that use other databases,
but will complicate the life of developers who just want to use the
default database that we've selected for our distro.
So we can scratch "workaround" in my previous email and consider the fix
I made to add the derby dependency to implementation-data/pom.xml as a
clean fix :)
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
