Mike Perham wrote: > Brett, I'm not an expert in Cobertura's usage of ASM. The POM says it > requires 2.1 and I was not about to jump from 2.1 -> 1.5.3. Instead I > focused on Cobertura's own best practice which is simply to not put ASM > in the classpath during runtime.
cool - I'm sure its an issue either way. I think that's the right approach. > > The issue is that Cobertura needs to be in the plugin classpath for the > instrumentation phase and in the project classpath for the test phase. > The project pulls in ASM into both classpaths. We can't exclude ASM > because then it won't be available during instrumentation. I think I'm starting to understand a bit better. I was just a bit thrown by a dummy dependency, and wonder if there isn't a better way. Maybe we just need to select the explicit cobertura deps to include on the runtime classpath? > I noted on this mailing list that my solution was controversial, the > best I could come up with but wanted a core Maven dev to review it in > order to get a better solution. No one responded in the customary 48-72 > hrs. That's fine. I'm a bit behind on mail, as you can tell :) > > I checked it in without the actual POM available yet because I needed to > leave for the day and wanted to wrap the issue up. I figured the POM > would be available within 1-2 hours. My mistake. I won't do that > again. It happens :) I'll try and get a nice noisy Continuum server going soonish :) Thanks! Brett
