---- "Jörg Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Simon Kitching wrote: > > [snip] > > > Personally, I prefer the second because it is clear to all > > readers that yes a version *is* being specified for this > > dependency. With the dependencyManagement approach, it isn't > > clear unless you check the parent pom. However I appear to be > > in the minority, with many people preferring dependencyManagement. > > Because the dependencyManagement also define the version of the transitive > deps (at least it should since M206).
Good point. Using the <version>$foo</version> approach only works for direct dependencies; it cannot be used to influence the selected version for a transitive dependency. However if you want dependencyManagement to apply to transient deps, you would really need to use [x.y] or [x.y,z.a] version numbers, right? If a pom has a dependencyManagement declaration of <version>1.0</version> but some required lib declares a dependency on the same artifact using <version>[1.2,1.4]</version> then what will happen? I presume that version 1.2 will be used, ie the dependencyManagement declaration is ignored. If that is true, then it cannot actually be relied on unless dependencyManagement uses explicitly locked versions (or ranges). Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
