[seam-dev] Meeting 2011-08-17

[Dan Allen]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:48, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:27, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>  Another thing to add to the agenda which we need to discuss is dependency
>> scopes.  In particular, we need to review our previous decision to make the
>> implementation component of a module runtime-scoped, in light of the fact
>> that we now no longer have combined jars.
>>
>
> Isn't the idea of having an API and implementation split is that you should
> not be compiling against anything in the implementation? Of course, an end
> user can choose to override that convention to make the implementation a
> compile-time scope, but we don't want to encourage that, do we?
>

I'll add to that that I really, really don't think that having a single
dependency declaration is a holy grail. We have gone to great lengths to
have an API for Seam 3 and I think we should advocating the use of it (as
separate from the implementation). It's a minor inconvenience to add to the
POM (a complexity that Forge can tare), but far less convenient than
slipping into a dependency on an implementation class.

I do agree that we need to revisit it how it all works, but the goal should
be so that the API can be honored and that adding a dependency is consistent
from module to module.

-Dan

-- 
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20110816/a949549a/attachment.html