+1, but you may want to also insist on using scope=import. Because if you don't, for example, you won't test scope deps of that pom, etc.
Cheers 2013/6/23 Laird Nelson <[email protected]> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Baptiste MATHUS <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > One other way would be to define an additional module which would be of > > type pom, and would serve as a dedicated import pom. That pom would > simply > > depend on the modules you want to provide. > > > > I wanted to reiterate this point because there is no Maven documentation > that reveals that this is possible, and it is one of the most powerful ways > to put together a large, modular system. > > To be clear: a project of packaging type pom can be used as a regular old > dependency. Anything it depends on will be pulled in transitively. > > Among other things this means you can whip up a pom.xml that "fronts" > complicated dependencies with custom exclusions and all the other bells and > whistles, but then tell your development team to just depend on this > "facade pom". That frees you as well to change its makeup as underlying > artifact versions change, bugs are fixed, dependencies are eliminated, etc. > It's effectively a way to version a subset of a pom independent of the > rest of that pom (which some would argue should have been part of Maven in > the first place). > > This may be clear to some, but it is certainly not clear to everyone and it > deserves special mention. It's powerful stuff. > > Best, > Laird > > -- > http://about.me/lairdnelson > -- Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net Sauvez un arbre, Mangez un castor !
