> Better than exclude - re-declare the tapestry version in your own > application pom so Maven's "nearest" version resolution can work > properly (that way you don't have to exclude them for each dependency > that declares a specific version of Tapestry).
On a side note: Respectfully I disagree with you Kalle :) I maintain that using exclude is the most efficient way as there is a chance that you can end up with more than one version of the jar on your classpath... also explicit declaration generally implies that you have to remember to track versions. Kind regards, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo" <thiag...@gmail.com> To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 19 August, 2009 01:50:43 GMT +02:00 Athens, Beirut, Bucharest, Istanbul Subject: Re: Hello. New user here! Em Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:19:43 -0300, Martin Torre Castro <mad...@hotmail.com> escreveu: > I have find an alternative solution for my problem, but I'd like to > thank Kalle, Joshua and Thiago for the help. I'm interested in Tapestry > and events and I will look for information about mixings and the > Chenille Kit in the future. Thank you very much. You're welcome! Just a little nitpick: it's mixins, not mixings. ;) Their use and implementation in Tapestry are described in http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/guide/mixins.html. In a broader sense, you can read about mixins in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixin. -- Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
