is it a bug? On 4/27/07, Jerome Lacoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/27/07, Gregory Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/27/07, Jerome Lacoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/27/07, Gregory Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that instead of using optional, you have been meaning to use > > > <scope>provided</scope>. This would indicate that the jars are > > > necessary, but won't include them in your war because it is assumed > > > that it will be provided by the container, or in your case, the ear. > > > > Nope. Cf last part of > > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-war-plugin/examples/war-manifest-guide.html > > Ouch, that's a little disconcerting. Here's what the pom reference > has to say about optional: > > "optional: Marks optional a dependency when this project itself is a > dependency. Confused? For example, imagine a project A that depends > upon project B to compile a portion of code that may not be used at > runtime, then we may have no need for project B for all project." > > Since it sounds like none of your dependencies are optional in either > the english or maven senses of the word, I don't see the justification > for the way the war manifests are configured. What you've done > makes sense in terms of getting the desired effect, but not so much in > terms of the meaning of the metadata. agreed > What I'd rather see is an option in the ear plugin for removing > artifacts from dependencies that are already present in APP-INF/lib. > That way, you can remove the optional tag completely, still have your > manifests the way you want, be able to test and still have your lean > ears. That would be better as I would have to make a single change to my project (the optimization could almost be on by default in a next major release of the plugin). The solution should also update the wars MANIFEST files. Cheers, Jerome --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
