On 20/03/2009, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles. > > > > If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional. > > > But, it *is* optional, because the annotations are not required at > runtime.
It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time. > Putting it in "provided" scope means that it's up to the > users to make sure it is actually provided in the runtime environment > (such as the servlet API or something). This would make users think > they need to make sure it's there when they really don't. I guess we need to see what Maven does with the "provided" scope, and see if that is worse than its behaviour "compile+optional". In the meantime, I've changed the scope to provided, but added a comment to say the dependency is optional at run-time. > The dependency is a compile-time (the default scope), optional dependency. No, it's not optional at compile-time. It seems neither compile+optional nor provided will satisfy everyone, so maybe the JIRA issue I raised and closed needs to be resurrected: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4097 Would you be willing to explain your concerns there? [I'll re-open it if you cannot] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
