[seam-dev] Meeting 2011-08-17

[Dan Allen]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:57, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:

>  Of course, but we break that rule.  Solder is one example, there's
> multiple utility classes in the implementation that are required to compile
> other modules.
>

I consider that a bug (or a work in progress, depending on how you look at
it).


> Also, by making the implementation runtime-only, the user is forced to
> declare two dependencies for their project, one for the API and one for the
> implementation.  If the  implementation was compile-scoped, they could just
> declare the implementation dependency and the API would then be pulled in
> automatically.  This is the kind of stuff we need to discuss and come to a
> resolution on.
>

Again, I don't think one dependency is a holy grail. We are making an
optimization that I don't find necessary. Making an implementation
compile-scoped could be classified as careless programming (by some strict
architects, let's say).

If it's setup correctly, depending on seam-faces (the impl) should make it a
runtime dep, make the api compile time, make any dependent api compile time
and make any dependency impl runtime. If Maven can't accommodate that, then
it's just a pita (even then, the worse thing that happens is that the user
has two dependencies).

-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/d8c33edf/attachment.html