On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Simon, > > yes, I think it does make sense, just as transitive dependencies make > sense. > > if you publish a component containing another set of jars and their > various versions, you may want it to be known as a single version e.g. 3.5 > and if update your bundle only advance the components version (say to > 3.5.1) > with no need for every deveoper to change the version of every component > but just the main version (here 3.5->3.5.1).
Sorry Wolfgang bug I still have no idea what you are trying to say here. There are two types of things that get published: * applications * libraries When publishing an application, there is no need to worry about transitive dependencies; everything the user needs is bundled with the application and the user really doesn't care what libs are used internally. When publishing a library, you publish *just* your code, plus information about what libs your code needs, and the version-ranges that are acceptable for it (ie a pom file). The application that uses your library may well then override your recommended dependency versions if they prefer to use other versions for any reason. What exactly is the use-case you are trying to support? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
