On Dec 25, 2007 7:12 PM, aldana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that makes sense... so it seems that these checks will only be possible on > syntax level (check, if used types are from direct or transitive > dependencies), maybe i will give this check a try with a syntax analyzer > integrated in a continous integration build. > of course this won't save me from dynamic level (reflection). well, let's > see what can be done to at least reduce the direct access of transitive > libraries for this really makes maintaining difficult (e.g. site-effects > when removing library with loads of dependencies). >
"mvn dependency:analyze" may also help to detect situations where transitive dependencies should better be declared as direct dependencies. > > so optional libraries only make sense if scope-marked as runtime...? > No, the optional library may be needed for compiling. It can still be optional if it is never loaded at runtime for a certain use case. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
