If the dependencies are optional, my POM has to explicitly state the dependencies it wants. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of transitive dependencies, right? There should simply be a seperate POM for each set of dependencies. ex:
spring-orm-hibernate spring-orm-jdo spring-orm-toplink etc... Not sure I see what the problem is. Almost all the dependencies are <optional>true</optional>, and therefore don't come through transitively. Therefore you don't need to exclude them. -Stephen On 24 Jan 2006 04:40:00 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why oh why is it so painful to setup a new project? Transitive dependencies > are actually causing more pain than they are helping me. This is largely > due to the poor state of the spring POM's, but I think it's highly unrealistic > to expect new java projects to jump through the hoops of specifing a ton of > "excludes" in their POM. > > Spring is a perfect example of a framework that > is being adopted more and more every day. How can maven2 claim to have transitive > dependencies, and have it perform so poorly with one of the prime examples? > > > http://jroller.com/page/$entry.website.user.userName/?anchor=seperate_artifacts_for_seperate_dependencies > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
