You should try version 1.1.1 of this artifact instead. The commons-logging people fixed this by adding optional tags etc.
And in the future, you are welcome (and invited!) to complain (loudly) to the dev team responsible for a given artifact about their poms when they are not working as you expect/require. But this isn't really appropriate to complain about here, IMO. Wayne On 4/22/08, Gregory BOISSINOT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I use Maven 2 for almost 2 years now. > The Maven distribution version succeeds one another and I don't understand > why you always cannot choice to exclude transitive dependency for your > dependency framewok. > > For example, if you want to package in your web application > "commons-logging" on version "1.1", and you do not want the "log4j", > "logkit", "avalon-framework" and especially "javax.servlet" that it must not > include in your WEB-INF/lib directory for a web application. > > So, you must write just for "commons-logging" : > <dependency> > <groupId>commons-logging</groupId> > <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId> > <version>1.1</version> > <exclusions> > <exclusion> > <groupId>log4j</groupId> > <artifactId>log4j</artifactId> > </exclusion> > <exclusion> > <groupId>logkit</groupId> > <artifactId>logkit</artifactId> > </exclusion> > <exclusion> > <groupId>avalon-framework</groupId> > <artifactId>avalon-framework</artifactId> > </exclusion> > <exclusion> > <groupId>javax.servletjavax.servlet</groupId> > <artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId> > </exclusion> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > > In a project, if you depend of many framework, you will obtain a pom.xml > very spacious and not maintainable. Suddenly, they lose the interest of > Maven. > > In this example, you can't use the "provided" scope that not gets transitive > dependency because I want to inlude it in my package. > And I can't use the following section because the "runtime" scope gets > transitive dependency (it is normal) : > > <dependency> > <groupId>commons-logging</groupId> > <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId> > <version>1.1</version> > <scope>provided</scope> > </dependency> > <dependency> > <groupId>commons-logging</groupId> > <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId> > <version>1.1</version> > <scope>runtime</scope> > </dependency> > > > The problem is that the common-logging maven descriptor is very poor. > They should use for theirs dependency provided scope for "servlet-jar" that > is not transitive or the <optional> to true for the other dependency. > > You can't control the framework distribution, so it misses the control of > the transitive dependency in the leaf tree. > > What do you think about? > > > Thanks > -- > Gregory BOISSINOT > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/A-poor-dependency-management-tp16825387s177p16825387.html > Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
