purely informative (at least for now)
that's why I encourage people to use the small jars that are more explicit
On 6/20/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do optional dependencies have any effect at all, or are they purely
descriptive? Do they play a role in dependency version resolution,
for instance if they are the "nearest" source of a dependency? Are
there issues or wiki pages regarding the design of "optional" for
Maven 2.1?
(A bit off-topic, I suppose, but if Spring is going to have that many
optional dependencies, I'll be having to deal with it a lot more in
the future...)
-Stephen
On 6/20/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> only one required, but all the others as optional
>
> On 6/20/06, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's what the Juergen had to say:
> >
> > <quote>
> > We tried a number of different jar file arrangements and eventually went
> > with the all-encompassing spring.jar for 2.0 M5, as alternative to a
> > combination of fine-grained jars from the "modules" directory. The mock jar
> > is still separate, sitting alongside either spring.jar or a combination of
> > fine-grained jars. The same applies to the jar that contains the AspectJ
> > aspects.
> >
> > The line between what's within spring.jar and what's a separate jar was just
> > becoming too arbitrary, with the various O/R Mapping options on the one hand
> > and the various web integration options on the other hand. Hence, the
> > current plan is so stick with the "one-big-jar versus
> > many-fine-grained-jars" strategy for 2.0 RC1 and final again (just like we
> > had it in Spring 1.2.x).
> > </quote>
> >
> > Because of this, it seems to me that spring-2.0-m5 should have a POM
> > at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/springframework/spring/2.0-m5/
> > with a single dependency - commons-logging. True?
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On 6/19/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hehe, I think you have wrote to the wrong list! you have to ask Spring
> > > guys they are the official ones
> > >
> > > and M5 is not missing dependencies, it doesn't have pom at all!
> > >
> > > You can vote at
> > > http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/spring/browse/SPR-1484
> > >
> > > I'm opening another thread to poing Maven users there
> > >
> > > On 6/19/06, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The spring.jar for 2.0 M4 didn't include
> > > > org.springframework.orm.hibernate*. The one for M5 does. The
> > > > spring-hibernate3.jar for M4 included Hibernate dependencies, the one
> > > > for M5 does not. Which is the correct way moving forward? Which way
> > > > will it be in 2.0 Final?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > > -- The Princess Bride
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
