Each of those fields maps to a separate filter in the artifact filters.
The filters grew over time but they were meant to be used separately
most of the time. So you might say copy all com.sonatype or exclude
org.apache but rarely try to specify and individual artifact...that's
what the copy/unpack (minus the -dependencies) goals were for.
Paul Gier wrote:
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
