Re: [forge-dev] Build broken due to FORGE-1823 and FORGE-1824

Unfortunately that would be incorrect. The whole point of this is that we are moving toward a real api/impl split where API classes are visible to dependent classloaders, and impl classes are not. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Vineet Reynolds Pereira < vpereira(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com&gt; > > To: "forge-dev List" <forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:03:35 AM > > Subject: [forge-dev] Build broken due to FORGE-1823 and FORGE-1824 > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1823 > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1824 > > > > Fixing these issue has revealed numerous places within our codebase > that we > > were incorrectly depending on IMPL classes that should not have been > leaked > > on the maven classpath. > > > > Now that the leak has been fixed, we have to clean up the mess :) The > only > > compilations I know to be remaining are in the scaffold-faces project. > > Would it be correct to fix the compilation errors in the scaffold-faces > project, > by adding javaee-impl as a provided dependency to this project? > > Some javaee-impl and transitive dependencies are required during > compilation of > scaffold-faces, while at runtime, this would be provided by the javaee > addon. > > > > > It remains to be seen how many of the tests break due to this change... > we'll > > see. > > > > -- > > Lincoln Baxter, III > > http://ocpsoft.org > > "Simpler is better." > > > > _______________________________________________ > > forge-dev mailing list > > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > _______________________________________________ > forge-dev mailing list > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better."