except from our point of view (i.e. the versions maven plugin) the use of :version may be problematic...
I'm thinking gID:aID:type:classifier:version -Stephen 2009/4/16 Paul Gier <[email protected]>: > I like the syntax that you chose using "includes" and "excludes" containing > a comma separated list of "[groupId]:[artifactId]:[type]:[version]". To me > this is more intuitive than separate fields for artifactIds, groupIds, and > classifiers. > > Although I would maybe add [classifier] also. > > Mark Hobson wrote: >> >> 2009/4/16 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I've no issues with using excludes and not exclude >>> >>> of course the big issue I see is that all the goals in >>> maven-dependency-plugin have different properties doing exactly the >>> same thing! >>> >>> I have to say I like your syntax, as gives a way to specify a complete >>> set with one execution. >>> >>> the other syntaxes are not as flexible.... >>> >>> I guess I'm just looking for some "standard" way and a "standard name" >>> for these "standard" ways >> >> The dependency:tree goal was written independently from the rest of >> the maven-dependency-plugin and added later, hence the discrepancy. >> I'm obviously biased as I also prefer my syntax :) Perhaps see what >> everyone else thinks and then we can move to a standard syntax. >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
