I myself use slf4j and this "99" hack Using en empty "commons-logging-0.0-null.jar" would NOT break the LATEST keyword resolution and could be forced from project <dependencyManagement> (with provided scope)
This would be a nice solution to globaly exclude xommons-logging without breaking existing builds Nicolas 2009/5/14 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > On 14/05/2009, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as <scope>system</scope> ? > > > > > > Beg your pardon, but this is against any use of transitive > > dependencies. Likewise for "provided", of course. If it is a > > dependency, then it is. If anyone else intends to replace it, okay, > > but this is the users decision. > > > > Not sure what you mean about transitive dependencies here. > > AIUI, what the 99.0-does-not-exist is trying to do is to provide a > fake resolution for people who want to use jcl-over-slf4j instead of > commons-logging. > > The referenced blog had a posting suggesting using > <scope>provided</scope> but apparently that still adds commons logging > as a dependency. > > I was suggesting trying "system" scope instead. > If people want to try that for their systems, well why not? > > But I agree with others that version 99 is a really bad idea. > > Perhaps "0.0-does-not-exist" might be a more acceptable solution, or > maybe "0.0-null-version" as it does need to exist. > > > Jochen > > > > -- > > Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > >
